Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[Moonbox]

It's probably only a misunderstanding. My statement only applied only to preconditions for the final settlement negotiations. Dialogues around achieving ceasefire (in the sense of stopping all forms of massive hostilities) can go ahead anytime - as long as both parties actually seek practical results, i.e. achieving reduction or cessation of hostilities, rather than minute political gains, as it mostly has been the case till now.

Okay well it seems we've cleared that up finally.

That bias does not exist. I already pointed out many times that militant attacks constitute obvious form of hostility and agression, and only argue that Israels' own policy of expansion should be qualified as such, clearly and without reservations.

I'll agree that continuing settlement growth is sand flung in the other side's eyes yes.

Agree, raising the level of demands would certainly increase the risk of failure. Why couldn't it be limited to the sides, immediately involved in the conflict, at least as the first step toward all-encompassing settlement?

If the immediate sides could agree to and enforce peace and clamp down on its own militants, then yes. If, on the other hand, groups like Hezbollah and Hamas continued to be funded from Iran and continued to operate extensively

in the area, I don't think it would be possible.

I agree that it should be a matter for negotiations, yet, any substantial deviation from commonly recognised "fair" grounds (of which the condition to share Jerusalem is obviously one, in the light of all the history) would greatly undermine the chance of achieving lasting peace.

Perhaps. I don't know enough about how East/West Jerusalem were divied up, but I do believe Israel annexed the rest of the city decades ago and I simply believe that it would be a harder point to negotiate on. Sometimes a peace agreement doesn't bring you back to how things were 40 years ago. You have to focus on the best possible peace at present then, rather than how things were back then.

Now, there're only two alternatives, to seek ways to peace with whoever was chosen (by us ourselves, decades back) to be our adversary / partner, or continue with the status quo, of mutual hostility and agression.

and that's something the two sides are really going to have to figure out themselves.

[myata]

So you believe that the Arab countries have a strange belief. It sounds like you have taken a side.

Nope. Only a general statements on the nature of beliefs vs reality.

Because that "strange belief" they have manifests itself in hostile acts.

Glad you noticed. So, for example, a belief in entitlement to the other's property (e.g. land) could lead to "hostile acts" too?

Sorry, you keep avoiding what some Arab countries are at their heart against. You want to focus on territories. They want to focus on all of Israel. All of Israel. The continued expansion of building within 1967 borders is a continued a violation of peace and only the withdrawal of all Jews from the area will satisfy.

And you like to speak for others, not so? But anyways, even it were to be so, would that justify Israel's own clear acts of agression? If so, then your position has been correctly summarised (see above), thank-you. And if not, why your advocated pseudo peace plan so staunchly and persistently fails to as much as even notice these major violations, not to think of acting upon them?

Are you excusing the state of Israel from being and avoiding talking about it because it will show you have taken a side?

No, that must be something (someone?) else.

Seems you are prepared to ignore Israel "occupying" Arab land in pre-1967 borders. That is a violation of peace for some, an aggressive act.

It may very well be so, but of course, in any approach even remotely related to genuine peace, it would never excuse or justify obvous acts of agression perpetrated by the other side. Ignoring, excusing, and condoning obvious acts of agression by your ally and friend is exactly the reason why your advocated approach has very little to do with genuine peace.

I'll keep pointing out the large flaws in your thinking and you keep avoiding answering. Think most people here know what you are made of.

Indeed you're very successful in pointing out those flaws, but entirely in your own arguments because I never said anything of what you're trying to attribute to me.

[jdobbin]

Nope. Only a general statements on the nature of beliefs vs reality.

Really? You don't think it is a reality what many Arab countries say?

Glad you noticed. So, for example, a belief in entitlement to the other's property (e.g. land) could lead to "hostile acts" too?

This is what some Arab countries want: All of Israel returned.

And you like to speak for others, not so? But anyways, even it were to be so, would that justify Israel's own clear acts of agression? If so, then your position has been correctly summarised (see above), thank-you. And if not, why your advocated pseudo peace plan so staunchly and persistently fails to as much as even notice these major violations, not to think of acting upon them?

Didn't make the statement to justify anything. That is you putting words where none are.

I am just saying that you have not said where you stand on the state of Israel. If you want all aggression stopped and the state of Israel existence is aggression then the state of Israel should end. Right? And if not, why not?

No, that must be something (someone?) else.

So you are back to not recognizing Israel?

It may very well be so, but of course, in any approach even remotely related to genuine peace, it would never excuse or justify obvous acts of agression perpetrated by the other side. Ignoring, excusing, and condoning obvious acts of agression by your ally and friend is exactly the reason why your advocated approach has very little to do with genuine peace.

Never said anything about justifying. That is only you talking about to deflect.

Israel as a state is in jeopardy based on your thinking.

Indeed you're very successful in pointing out those flaws, but entirely in your own arguments because I never said anything of what you're trying to attribute to me.

That is because you won't recognize the state of Israel even within 1967 borders.

[myata]

Perhaps. I don't know enough about how East/West Jerusalem were divied up, but I do believe Israel annexed the rest of the city decades ago and I simply believe that it would be a harder point to negotiate on. Sometimes a peace agreement doesn't bring you back to how things were 40 years ago. You have to focus on the best possible peace at present then, rather than how things were back then.

Well looks like we here, for once, could come to a negotiated agreement, and can only wish the same to the sides still involved in the conflict. As well as that the outsiders, if they (really) have to be involved, encourage the sides to move toward lasting, negotiated settlement not in the least observing even minimal impartiality and balance.

[myata]

Really? You don't think it is a reality what many Arab countries say?

We already discussed that at length. Just as reality of belief, reality of say may or may not be different from the reality of act. Which, the latter one, could also be taken into account once in while.

This is what some Arab countries want: All of Israel returned.

So, the belief in entitlement to other's property and/or land can never lead to "hostile acts", no?

Didn't make the statement to justify anything. That is you putting words where none are.

If you'd only care / could? read you'd certainly notice that it was a question.

I am just saying that you have not said where you stand on the state of Israel. If you want all aggression stopped and the state of Israel existence is aggression then the state of Israel should end. Right? And if not, why not?

It's kind of relates to the above, because I clearly described the acts of hostility and agression I'm primarily concerned with, and apparently that had no effect on your understanding of my position, so I'm really at loss how else could I carry the meaning of it to you.

So you are back to not recognizing Israel?

Still talking to yourself?

Never said anything about justifying. That is only you talking about to deflect.

No need to say it, it clearly shows in your act, if not you'd be able to point to the last time any real, practical measure was taken about that blatant, ongoing and persistent policy of illegal expansion?

Israel as a state is in jeopardy based on your thinking.

Of course and we were growing restless waiting when this (default) one was going to show up? Congrats Dobbin, now you've made yourself virtually indistinguishable from a hard line Israeli apologist, such a great position for promoting "peace"!

[jdobbin]

We already discussed that at length. Just as reality of belief, reality of say may or may not be different from the reality of act. Which, the latter one, could also be taken into account once in while.

I think you had better get a grasp of the reality of the fact and how some Arab countries act on it.

So, the belief in entitlement to other's property and/or land can never lead to "hostile acts", no?

I think I asked you that in regard to Israel within 1967 borders.

If you'd only care / could? read you'd certainly notice that it was a question.

Think I already answered a few times. It is you who is deflecting in giving answers.

It's kind of relates to the above, because I clearly described the acts of hostility and agression I'm primarily concerned with, and apparently that had no effect on your understanding of my position, so I'm really at loss how else could I carry the meaning of it to you.

I don't know how you could be so naive as to think that your policy would not be taken as to include hostile aggression within 1967 borders.

Still talking to yourself?

Still not answering the question?

No need to say it, it clearly shows in your act, if not you'd be able to point to the last time any real, practical measure was taken about that blatant, ongoing and persistent policy of illegal expansion?

Reading minds? Think that is what you accuse everyone else of.

Of course and we were growing restless waiting when this (default) one was going to show up? Congrats Dobbin, now you've made yourself virtually indistinguishable from a hard line Israeli apologist, such a great position for promoting "peace"!

While you make yourself indistinguishable from an anti-Semite.

[Moonbox]

Well looks like we here, for once, could come to a negotiated agreement, and can only wish the same to the sides still involved in the conflict. As well as that the outsiders, if they (really) have to be involved, encourage the sides to move toward lasting, negotiated settlement not in the least observing even minimal impartiality and balance.

and if it was as hard as it was for you and I to reconcile our thoughts, imagine how hard it is for them

[myata]

While you make yourself indistinguishable from an anti-Semite.

As said, it was pretty obvious you've been seeking all possible (and impossible as well) ploys to employ this default, well shuffled and worn out argument ever since the early days of this discussion (for the lack of anything better, one may wonder?), but I guess this should conclude our discussion (on my part at least), permanently.

[myata]

and if it was as hard as it was for you and I to reconcile our thoughts, imagine how hard it is for them

It's a tight knot indeed. But as said, hope never dies, and tomorrow will be a new day.

[jdobbin]

As said, it was pretty obvious you've been seeking all possible (and impossible as well) ploys to employ this default, well shuffled and worn out argument ever since the early days of this discussion (for the lack of anything better, one may wonder?), but I guess this should conclude our discussion (on my part at least), permanently.

If you can't answer whether you think the state of Israel should exist, it is indistinguishable from anti-Semite views.

Just answer the question.

[jbg]

If you can't answer whether you think the state of Israel should exist, it is indistinguishable from anti-Semite views.

Just answer the question.

It won't answer the question.

[myata]

The business of apologising agressive Israeli policies must be running pretty slow of late, if it only inspires this sort of defenders (and arguments).

[Moonbox]

The business of apologising agressive Israeli policies must be running pretty slow of late, if it only inspires this sort of defenders (and arguments).

Well to be fair you're refusing to say they have a right to exist. If you believe in the peace process, you also have to believe that both sides have to acknowledge each other and agree to live in peace. If even you won't acknowledge their right for peaceful existence, what hope is there that the Arabs in the Middle East will?

[myata]

Well to be fair you're refusing to say they have a right to exist. If you believe in the peace process, you also have to believe that both sides have to acknowledge each other and agree to live in peace. If even you won't acknowledge their right for peaceful existence, what hope is there that the Arabs in the Middle East will?

Ah, but I already commented on that, and quite a while back too. This "right to exist" adage is a pointless (but highly useful for pseudo peaceful strategists) distraction away from addressing the real and practical issues, in solving which their policies have failed so utterly and consistently, i.e. deescalation of ALL hostilities and stopping ALL acts of agression, regardless of who's involved and for what reason. That would be the first real and serious step toward achieving the real and practical confirmation to the "right to exist" for both sides involved in the conflict. The next would be of course, negotiating a serious, confident and lasting settlement that would allow the sides to live in peace and prosperity. Only that settlemnt would finally enshrine the "right to exist", for all sides involved in the conflict, and much better and reliably than any verbal declarations by outsiders. And vice versa still, in the absense of such lasting settlement, there can be no guarantee that the confict would not run to the bitter end, i.e. one side driving the other into the sea, or something similar. Again, regardless of any verbal declarations outsiders may have to contribute.

[Moonbox]

I don't really care anymore. Honestly, this is such an anal argument at this point it's not even funny.

As a closing point, and you can disagree if you like, I would suggest that it's not an unfair position to say you can support Israel's right to exist while at the same time condemning their aggression.

Confirming their right to exist doesn't necessarily excuse what the British etc did in creating Israel at the first place, but it's a pretty crucial that at least Israel's neighbours acknowledge that the people living their now have a right to be there (inside whatever borders are agreed upon).

Edited September 23, 2009 by Moonbox

[jdobbin]

Ah, but I already commented on that, and quite a while back too. This "right to exist" adage is a pointless (but highly useful for pseudo peaceful strategists) distraction away from addressing the real and practical issues, in solving which their policies have failed so utterly and consistently, i.e. deescalation of ALL hostilities and stopping ALL acts of agression, regardless of who's involved and for what reason.

Israel as a state is regarded as an act of aggression. If that has to be stopped before peace can begin, it isn't going to happen.

[jdobbin]

Confirming their right to exist doesn't necessarily excuse what the British etc did in creating Israel at the first place, but it's a pretty crucial that at least Israel's neighbours acknowledge that the people living their now have a right to be there (inside whatever borders are agreed upon).

Hard to even begin a move to peace when Israel itself is regarded as aggression and I think that is what some people fail to see.

If Israel is a state of aggression then should the standard be to sanction them until they are no longer a state?

[myata]

Confirming their right to exist doesn't necessarily excuse what the British etc did in creating Israel at the first place, but it's a pretty crucial that at least Israel's neighbours acknowledge that the people living their now have a right to be there (inside whatever borders are agreed upon).

Who has to make that confirmation though? Is it up to somebody from the outside to insist on all kinds of upfront statements and declarations, or for the sides themselves to find a way to exist in peace and prosperity, side by side?

A genuine committment to seek peace could lead to honest, in good faith peace dialogue, then to a lasting settlement that would be the best guarantee of the right to exist for both sides. Continuing acts of agression, by either side, for any motivation and regardless of who doesn't want to notice, may very well result in escalation of the conflict to the bitter end. Needless to say that genuine committment to peace cannot come while somebody's still involved in active and massive acts of agression, no matter how some pretend to not comprehend that. And in the situation where neither of the sides has reached the point where they are ready to commit to seeking peace, genuinly and in good faith, the best outsiders could do is to help them reach that understanding, persistently and without bias. If necessary, taking real and practical measures to discourage any side still involved in such acts.

This is of course, lightyears, like 180 degrees opposite from what we (West in general) were doing up till now. From one side of the mouth, we promise ongoing committment (and serious aid, military and financial) to one particular side; from the other, we gently chide it (once in a rare while) for particularly obvious acts violations. So what should the sides make of such "peaceful" position? Your guess.

So how and why would a verbal declaration be more important than seeking real and practical ways to peace?

Edited September 24, 2009 by myata

[Moonbox]

So how and why would a verbal declaration be more important than seeking real and practical ways to peace?

I'm not going into this again with you. I thought you and I at least had come to some sort of understanding. At least we agreed that mutual recognition of each other's rights for peaceful co-existence is necessary to move forward.

I have pretty low hopes that I'll get anything else out of you. I still don't understand why you can't say Israel at least should have a right to exist, given that there are numerous generations that have been born and raised there.

That, however, is your perogative and it seems fairly clear that you're not interested in changing this position for whatever reason.

Personally, I believe Israel has the right to exist. I also believe that they are not acting in a peaceful manner with their expansionism. I don't pass judgement on them exclusively, however, because I won't pretend to know what it's like to live there and be surrounded by enemies.

The reverse, however, is also true. I believe that the Arabs have legitimate grievances against Israel and I at least UNDERSTAND why they feel the need to launch attacks against civilians.

Neither of these are justifiable, but both sides have to figure out they have nothing to gain through continued conflict and that they are better off with peace. It might be that neither side is even interested, in which case the whole process is just appeasement of the West. Eventually, however, and I don't believe it will happen anytime soon, they WILL figure it out. We'll see how many people have to die before that happens.

I won't be responding in this thread anymore but thanks for the good discussion. 87 pages is too much!

Edited September 24, 2009 by Moonbox

[myata]

I'll respond anyways just because it was indeed a very good discussion.

I have pretty low hopes that I'll get anything else out of you. I still don't understand why you can't say Israel at least should have a right to exist, given that there are numerous generations that have been born and raised there.

That, however, is your perogative and it seems fairly clear that you're not interested in changing this position for whatever reason.

Personally, I believe Israel has the right to exist. I also believe that they are not acting in a peaceful manner with their expansionism. I don't pass judgement on them exclusively, however, because I won't pretend to know what it's like to live there and be surrounded by enemies.

I tried to explain that addressing, and proclaiming each other beliefs may not be a very efficient way to peace. Attention, at least on the initial approaches to peace, should be squared on reducing and eliminating the actual, physical acts of hostility, violence and agression, in all forms and by all sides. That in itself supports and guarantees the existence of both sides much better, more certainly, than any declarations and proclamatins.

Therefore I think that attention given to extracting any such proclamations upfront is a distraction from meaningful peace process.

The reverse, however, is also true. I believe that the Arabs have legitimate grievances against Israel and I at least UNDERSTAND why they feel the need to launch attacks against civilians.

Certainly, and we achieve nothing, or rather step back in the direction leading away from peace and lasting settlement pretending that their grievances do not exist. Both past and present.

Neither of these are justifiable, but both sides have to figure out they have nothing to gain through continued conflict and that they are better off with peace. It might be that neither side is even interested, in which case the whole process is just appeasement of the West. Eventually, however, and I don't believe it will happen anytime soon, they WILL figure it out. We'll see how many people have to die before that happens.

I agree, but I'd like to state one more time that our (i.e West in general) role in the conflict so far did not foster such understanding, on the contrary, in my view at least, did much to prolong and exacerbate it by lending staunch, unconditional support to the side that is itself involved in perpetrating acts of hostility and agression.

[jbg]

Israel as a state is regarded as an act of aggression. If that has to be stopped before peace can begin, it isn't going to happen.

I couldn't have said it better.

[jbg]

I think many Jews voted for the CPC this time. But not enough to snare any Montreal ridings.

[Saipan]

I hear Syria elects their government didn't you say we need to protect them becuase they are a democracy.

Here is my question how come we give India and Pakistan Nuclear technology and then we deny it too all others? Why is Israel allowed to have nukes but not other countries? I don't understand the hypocrisy.

1) We didn't give Pakistan nuclear technology.

2) It has to do with democratic countries. (we should take it away from China)

Likewise we allow police to carry guns anywhere, but not criminals.

[Oleg Bach]

What a bunch of crap. This is 2011 not 1965. No group in Canada dominates the other. Things have changed...and support that is needed politically will not come from some silly notion that Jews rule the world or have some sort of secret and sinister arrangement going on. Frankly - our banking system is still ruled by old Christians..so is our judicary system. The Jews are a well organized group of assistants and ancient style bureacrats...I leaned this during a law suit against a Jewish orgainization _ THEY wanted to settle but their high profile ANGLO law firm would not allow it...go figure? Frankly this thread is dated...and a way of thinking that boarders on quiet and personal anti-semitism...it's bullshit!

[bloodyminded]

Hard to even begin a move to peace when Israel itself is regarded as aggression and I think that is what some people fail to see.

If Israel is a state of aggression then should the standard be to sanction them until they are no longer a state?

No. The history of countries themselves, certainly including our own, is so often that of aggression and violence that it's thoroughly institutionalized, built right in, as it were. No one has any right to demand the end of the State of Israel. That's ludicrous.

Edited July 5, 2011 by bloodyminded