Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[myata]

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

You can certainly believe it (along with a host of other things you claimed over the course of this discussion, that were proven to be factually wrong), if you find it helpful. We should not expect however yet another of your "successes" to have any bearing on the actual situation, should we? And by now, we should know exactly why. Because actual, positive change toward peace is not the real intent of these strategies, which are related to genuine peace only in the name.

[GostHacked]

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

I still fail how it is Palestinians using Israeli land for real estate when the exact opposite has been happening for over 50 years. And since the jews got their little piece of heaven, why can't the Frankenstinians?? Where did this land come from?

Edited September 9, 2009 by GostHacked

[jdobbin]

You can certainly believe it (along with a host of other things you claimed over the course of this discussion, that were proven to be factually wrong), if you find it helpful. We should not expect however yet another of your "successes" to have any bearing on the actual situation, should we? And by now, we should know exactly why. Because actual, positive change toward peace is not the real intent of these strategies, which are related to genuine peace only in the name.

I don't just believe it, I know it. You have never factually proven me wrong because I wasn't. And because of this, you get all personal. Moreover, you can't even answer questions and act with less than adult-like behaviour when challenged on it.

[jbg]

I don't just believe it, I know it. You have never factually proven me wrong because I wasn't. And because of this, you get all personal. Moreover, you can't even answer questions and act with less than adult-like behaviour when challenged on it.

I agree with you on this particular issue but you can get rather personal as well.

[myata]

I don't just believe it, I know it. You have never factually proven me wrong because I wasn't.

"I can't be proven wrong because I never am"? An instant classic!

But of course, we can always turn to the facts. Dit you mean to say that you actually have examples of that pseudo peaceful strategy showing some real, practical act against ever ongoing expansion of illegal settlements? You shouldn't have kept it secret till now, but as always, I'm all ears to hear about it. And so:

And, while at that, are you also stating that 70% (and counting, daily) overall increase in illegal settlements over the time that strategy has been in place, never happened? Because it could certainly take at least some of the credit for that astounding "success".

These are the facts, and of course they are telling very clearly that the real act on the agressions and violations of your friendly party, in other words, a genuine, principled postion for peace, is simply not in the cards in that plan.

And because of this, you get all personal.

Not really. Unlike somebody else's here, my comments only apply to the opponents position (perhaps, at a time exemplified by their name), but, again, unlike somebody else's here, they never relate to the opponent's personal characteristics and traits, such as age; temper; personal beliefs and so on.

Moreover, you can't even answer questions and act with less than adult-like behaviour when challenged on it.

Oh I see, answering irrelevant and pointless challenges should be a token of "adult like' behaviour? You may want to attempt convincing your traffic police about that novel idea, please report the results.

Edited September 10, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

These are the facts, and of course they are telling very clearly that the real act on the agressions and violations of your friendly party, in other words, a genuine, principled postion for peace, is simply not in the cards in that plan.

Nice try but no. Lots of blovoiating but no, it doesn't support your point.

Not really. Unlike somebody else's here, my comments only apply to the opponents position (perhaps, at a time exemplified by their name), but, again, unlike somebody else's here, they never relate to the opponent's personal characteristics and traits, such as age; temper; and such.

That's quite an excuse for acting that way you do.

Oh I see, answering irrelevant and pointless challenges as a token of mature "adult like' behaviour?

It is relevant question that you just won't answer no matter how many times you are challenged on it.

[myata]

Nice try but no. Lots of blovoiating but no, it doesn't support your point.

Of course. When faced with inacceptable reality, close your eyes and believe that it does not exist, and everything is going according to the grand plan. The first rule of "peace" maker.

That's quite an excuse for acting that way you do.

Indeed, challenging and exposing hypocritical positions is one of the things we do in these discussions.

It is relevant question that you just won't answer no matter how many times you are challenged on it.

Could it be because my notion of "adult-like" (and I add, intelligent) behaviour is slightly different from yours?

Edited September 10, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

Of course. When faced with inacceptable reality, close your eyes and believe that it does not exist, and everything is going according to the grand plan. The first rule of "peace" maker.

More bloviating and even less evidence of what you claim.

Indeed, challenging and exposing hypocritical positions is one of the things we do in these discussions.

Personalizing is something you can't seem to control. My guess is that it isn't something that you usually do without the cover of anonymity.

Could it be because my notion of "adult-like" (and I add, intelligent) behaviour is slightly different from yours?

Think your response was "not going to answer, nyah." I think that speaks for itself.

[myata]

More bloviating and even less evidence of what you claim.

Of course, you skipped over the facts, that were presented, for the umpteenth time, only for your convenience. Well in line with the aforementioned rule.

Personalizing is something you can't seem to control. My guess is that it isn't something that you usually do without the cover of anonymity.

I can't comment on your guesses about what I do, but of course it's got nothing to do with "personalizing".

Think your response was "not going to answer, nyah." I think that speaks for itself.

Of course it does. I care about integrity of this discussion and refraining from responding to pointless "challenges" and irrelevant "questions" is a part of it.

[jdobbin]

Of course, you skipped over the facts, that were presented, for the umpteenth time, only for your convenience. Well in line with the aforementioned rule.

I believe it is you skipped over the facts.

I can't comment on your guesses about what I do, but of course it's got nothing to do with "personalizing".

No guesses. Just demonstrated over and over again by you.

Of course it does. I care about integrity of this discussion and refraining from responding to pointless "challenges" and irrelevant "questions" is a part of it.

Funny that what you consider irrelevant is the heart of the matter on the discussion.

[myata]

Funny that what you consider irrelevant is the heart of the matter on the discussion.

Except you've never explained how my personal position on that question would be relevant to the fact that for over two decades nothing has been done about persistent, ongoing acts of agression, as well as very obvious attempts to undermine, hide and ignore them. Sorry, but it looks much more like an attempt to distract the discussion from these inconvenient facts, and oh yeah, maybe a chance (however unlikely) to brand the opponent with an ideological label and thus discount the arguments that you haven't been able to respond to otherwise?

Anyways, I don't believe these exchanges are contributing any value to the discussion at this point, and so I'm going to take my leave now, until you're able to bring up an argument of factual, or logical (or both) value.

[jdobbin]

Except you've never explained how my personal position on that question would be relevant to the fact that for over two decades nothing has been done about persistent, ongoing acts of agression, as well as very obvious attempts to undermine, hide and ignore them. Sorry, but it looks much more like an attempt to distract the discussion from these inconvenient facts, and oh yeah, maybe a chance (however unlikely) to brand the opponent with an ideological label and thus discount the arguments that you haven't been able to respond to otherwise?

Actually, I did do that.

I said your view of whether Israel has a right to exist goes to the heart of whether aggression will ever stop. You refused to answer.

Anyways, I don't believe these exchanges are contributing any value to the discussion at this point, and so I'm going to take my leave now, until you're able to bring up an argument of factual, or logical (or both) value.

Run away if you like but the question of whether you believe Israel has a right to exist as a state remains. If your view is that is a form of aggression then one wonders if you would ever support it.

Edited September 10, 2009 by jdobbin

[myata]

I said your view of whether Israel has a right to exist goes to the heart of whether aggression will ever stop. You refused to answer.

Sorry, couldn't resist commenting on that most recent classic. So, after all these decades of hostilities and not so peaceful negotiations, the true cause of the problem has been established, and it's my own private view that "goes to the heart" of stopping agression? Perhaps you could also elaborate in what particular way it goes there?

But of course, if you say so, it must be so, and therefore I solemnly undertake to answer your question, even in the way you desire me to, if you can give us assurances that my act of doing so will stop ALL forms of agression in that conflict tomorrow, or in the very near future, for which you would also provide a schedule (in the common definition of the word).

[jdobbin]

Sorry, couldn't resist commenting on that most recent classic. So, after all these decades of hostilities and not so peaceful negotiations, the true cause of the problem has been established, and it's my own private view that "goes to the heart" of stopping agression? Perhaps you could also elaborate in what particular way it goes there?

But of course, if you say so, it must be so, and therefore I solemnly undertake to answer your question, even in the way you desire me to, if you can give us assurances that my act of doing so will stop ALL forms of agression in that conflict tomorrow, or in the very near future, for which you would also provide a schedule (in the common definition of the word).

There is that less than adult-like behavior we have come to expect from you.

You stated Israel is a form of aggression. You refuse to answer a question of whether you support the very existence of an Israelis state.

By the way, thought you were going to run away?

Edited September 10, 2009 by jdobbin

[myata]

There is that less than adult-like behavior we have come to expect from you.

And that was a very "smart" response, but excuse, in what exactly relation to the arguments (based on your own, earlier, statement, as can be seen immediately above) that were presented to you?

You stated Israel is a form of aggression. You refuse to answer a question of whether you support the very existence of an Israelis state.

No, it's your very own, excluse interpretation of something very different, that was actually said, and sorry, I can't waste anymore of my time adressing those.

By the way, thought you were going to run away?

What, you miss me, already? I already explained, I simply can't let an instant classic go by, something to do with the art of the things I guess, but indeed I won't be spending as much time unraveling all those confusions, misreadings and misunderstandings any longer.

Edited September 11, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

And that was a very "smart" response, but excuse, in what exactly relation to the arguments (based on your own, earlier, statement, as can be seen immediately above) that were presented to you?

I'm sure you don't know.

No, it's your very own, excluse interpretation of something very different, that was actually said, and sorry, I can't waste anymore of my time adressing those

.

Nope. Those were your words.

What, you miss me, already? I already explained, I simply can't let an instant classic go by, something to do with the art of the things I guess, but indeed I won't be spending as much time unraveling all those confusions, misreadings and misunderstandings any longer.

And there's that less than adult-like response that comes like clockwork.

Can't even answer a simple question.

[myata]

I'm sure you don't know.

I'd never dream of guessing for you, it's bound to be far too creative for anything I could approach to imagine.

Nope. Those were your words.

Then you'd be able to post the exact, unaltered quote (of me saying it) but you won't, because it doesn't exist in this reality, and I long stopped caring about sorting out and clarifying stuff of your vivid imagination.

Can't even answer a simple question.

No, one more time, and slowly, only for you: won't respond to a pointless, irrelevant bait.

[jdobbin]

I'd never dream of guessing for you, it's bound to be far too creative for anything I could approach to imagine.

No need to guess. You are well aware of what it is that you but do it anyway.

Then you'd be able to post the exact, unaltered quote (of me saying it) but you won't, because it doesn't exist in this reality, and I long stopped caring about sorting out and clarifying stuff of your vivid imagination.

I did. You ignored it.

No, one more time, and slowly, only for you: won't respond to a pointless, irrelevant bait.

But you do respond. All the time. You just don't answer the question.

[myata]

I did. You ignored it.

No, and you couldn't, because it simply does not exist in this Universe. But you might have imagined that, not unlike those imaginary "progresses" and "successes".

[jdobbin]

No, and you couldn't, because it simply does not exist in this Universe. But you might have imagined that, not unlike those imaginary "progresses" and "successes".

Nope. It was there. Questioned you right at the time you said it too.

[Moonbox]

Apologies, it must have been cut and paste error.

No worries

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.

You're just being trite and oversimplifying (rationalizing in a vacuum again). The distinction of different TYPES of aggression has to be made here. You could reasonably argue that people building homes and communities on their own initiative across borders that were never recognized is not really aggression at all.

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.

A useless argument. The people trying to negotiate peace are in a terrible position to do so. A US, British or even Canadian backed peace effort is laughable because we were the people that parachuted the Jews into Israel. Of course we support them because we made them. You can't have a baby in a den of wolves and then not defend it. It's a completely irrelevant argument.

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.

No, it's an bad conclusion that logic, history and the real world do not support whatsoever.

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.

It's not a starting point. It's the goal. Peace is the goal. That's what we have to assume Israel wants. If you can't offer peace than you're not offering anything and the negotiation process is a waste of time. To say that peace talks and negotiations can't happen before aggression is halted and reversed is stupid because in the real world that's how peace talks and negotiations have been happening for thousands of years. Ceasefires and peace are ALWAYS negotiated while fighting is going on and in the past it often took weeks/months for news of a treaty to arrive in an extended conflict.

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.

Utter crap taken from a completely delusional point of view. Your definition of 'aggression' in this conflict is Israeli settlements vs Arab violence. Eliminating one form of 'aggression' would displace hundreds of thousands, cost billions and billions and take months. Eliminating the other form of aggression requires simply not pressing 'launch' buttons. If you want to talk about trust then Israel is in the position to trust less because your proposal has much to lose for them and nothing to lose from the other side. Why should they trust the Arab side would commit to peace, or even peace talks, when the Arabs themselves say they won't?

Honestly, there's no point in arguing any further with you. You're not arguing from a practical or rational point of view. There's only ONE way that peace can be achieved in this conflict:

Both sides have to want it - PERIOD. They have to indicate they want it and they have to talk about how they are going to achieve a LASTING peace and what would be required to make it happen. If they're not willing to talk about or at least commit to the GOAL of long term peace, the entire process is a sham, which is currently the case. You can cry and bleed out of your eyes about how nasty a conclusion this is, but peace is an impossibility unless both sides are willing to commit to the PROCESS. Right now one side is refusing the process outright and the idea of lasting peace they say is not possible while the other side exists.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Moonbox

[myata]

Nope. It was there. Questioned you right at the time you said it too.

It would have been very easy to confirm by posting that exact, unaltered and non interpreted quote. But because it does not exist in this reality, you have the sole option of repeating, over and again, something that is obviously untrue, from the start. Good riddance.

[jdobbin]

It would have been very easy to confirm by posting that exact, unaltered and non interpreted quote. But because it does not exist in this reality, you have the sole option of repeating, over and again, something that is obviously untrue, from the start. Good riddance.

Funny how you want me to find things for you that you wrote in the first place.

And certainly, if you want to clear things up, you can answer now. The question is not irrelevant. If you don't believe the state of Israel has a right to exist, most people would say it is completely relevant.

Sorry if that gets you extremely angry but you were the one who talked about Israel being a nation based on aggression. And if that is so, it begs the question of whether you believe that nation should exist. And if your answer is yes, why?

[myata]

Funny how you want me to find things for you that you wrote in the first place.

Indeed, exactly because I never said it, it's up to you, exclusively and entirely, to find the quote, and demonstrate that it isn't yet another fantasy, confusion, misunderstanding etc, of free imagination.

And certainly, if you want to clear things up, you can answer now. The question is not irrelevant. If you don't believe the state of Israel has a right to exist, most people would say it is completely relevant.

Wait, didn't you just, a minute ago, claim that you already have my answer? Let's get to the bottom of it first. If you have it, you wouldn't mind kindly posting the quote, would you? and if you, and therefore admit that earlier insinuations were ... shall we say, of the realm of imagination? ... I'll consider. Deal?

Sorry if that gets you extremely angry but you were the one who talked about Israel being a nation based on aggression. And if that is so, it begs the question of whether you believe that nation should exist. And if your answer is yes, why?

A very fine example of an inner monologue, I regret that I haven't been able to contribute in any way, and therefore would have to admit your entire and exclusive ownership to it, but congrats anyways. It doesn't make me angry at all, more like, proud and amazed. Good stuff. Have you tried applying for the directorship of the spin office, in either administration (policy differences between the two being reduced to the absolute minimum)?

[jdobbin]

Indeed, exactly because I never said it, it's up to you, exclusively and entirely, to find the quote, and demonstrate that it isn't yet another fantasy, confusion, misunderstanding etc, of free imagination.

You said it. May as well stop denying it. Stop acting innocent about it because as soon as you wrote it, you were trying to evade it.

Wait, didn't you just, a minute ago, claim that you already have my answer? Let's get to the bottom of it first. If you have it, you wouldn't mind kindly posting the quote, would you? and if you, and therefore admit that earlier insinuations were ... shall we say, of the realm of imagination? ... I'll consider. Deal?

I am asking you to answer that question. Remember you are the one that claimed Israel had to apologize for itself.

A very fine example of an inner monologue, I regret that I haven't been able to contribute in any way, and therefore would have to admit your entire and exclusive ownership to it, but congrats anyways. It doesn't make me angry at all, more like, proud and amazed. Good stuff. Have you tried applying for the directorship of the spin office, in either administration (policy differences between the two being reduced to the absolute minimum)?

More angry bloviating on your part but still no answer from you on whether you think Israel has a right to exist.

Yes or no?

Stop the evasion. Stop saying it is irrelevant.