jdobbin Posted July 6, 2009 Author Report Posted July 6, 2009 But we're talking about actual results, Dobbin, not future possibilites. And the results are: No settlements in Gaza. By any rational measure, it's an accomplished failure and any rational individual genuinly attempting to achieve positive change would have no choice but to admit it. Change has happened. It will continue to happen. I'm sorry that you're finding insult in my stating plain, obvious fact, that you adamantly refuse to admit. But I'm left with no choice really, because it is a fact and it can be negated by simply looking away and pretending it's not there. Left with no choice, huh? If you can't control your emotion, they will get the best of you. OK, I'm starting to understand your creative languge, and it means that you cannot name such a period. Your hopscotch vision is your own problem. I'm afraid we have to conclude that your strategy of "friendly encouragement" indeed encourages creeping annexation, and therefore and in actuality works against peace. That would be the only rational logical explanation. We have seen Israel turn over land they occupied. We will see it again. And none of it will have happened as a result of sanctions. So you're prepared to turn a blind eye on and excuse illegal annexation of land (from the point of view of international law) and in the possible eventuality of squeezing native population out of East Jerusalem, something not unlike ethnic cleansing? Certainly sounds like a "peaceful" strategy and once on that peaceful path, I'd find it hard to predict where you'd end up. And you turn a blind eye on Hamas' stand on not recognizing Israel and their longstanding policy of taking all of Israel back? For once, I agree that though they happened at the same time, the causal connection has yet to be proven. What we do know for sure though, that the earlier "encouragement, involvement appeasement, etc" strateties did not work, i.e. did not cause any "change of behaviour". That, Dobbin, is a fact. I don't recall any attempts to change South Africa or Iraq's behaviour that didn't involve sanctions and disengagement. Again you're stating something as a fact but you have to prove it, not in the least but showing that you can have a clear unbiased view of the entirety of the situation. No one has an unbiased view of the situation least of all you. These indeed may be hopeful developments, but we're discussing the actual results of your advocated strategy so far. With massive increase of illegal settlements in vast majority of the occupied territories and overall, with no cessation of large scale military hostilities, with massive violations of human rights in the occupied territories, documented by independent organisations, do you admit that it's been an accomplished failure so far? Nope. Looks like things are back on track. Quote
myata Posted July 6, 2009 Report Posted July 6, 2009 No settlements in Gaza. And massive increase everywhere else. Hopscotch vision = tacit encoragement of creeping annexation = working against peace. Change has happened. It will continue to happen. Indeed, 70% increase in illegal settlements, and yes, Dobbin with your approach nobody could assure that the same kind of change won't continue, as it did all the while your strategy has been in place. Left with no choice, huh? If you can't control your emotion, they will get the best of you. Emotion cannot change the obvious fact that is staring you straight in the face no matter how you wished it wasn't there. We have seen Israel turn over land they occupied. We will see it again. And grabbed more land in the process, and with your tacit encouragement, indeed there's high chance that we'll see the same pattern continuing well into the future. And none of it will have happened as a result of sanctions. And now you're into predicting futures, and somehow I'm not at all surprised that you now have that wonderful ability, along with universal knowledge and whatever else you'd like to claim. And you turn a blind eye on Hamas' stand on not recognizing Israel and their longstanding policy of taking all of Israel back? I am not turning bling eye on any violations of human rights, security or international law, wherever they take place. Recognition of any state by another state is a different matter as it does not fall into any of these categories. And now it's your turn to admit an accomplished failure of your strategy in dealing with illegal settlements in the occupied territries. I don't recall any attempts to change South Africa or Iraq's behaviour that didn't involve sanctions and disengagement. You should try some reading up then. Before universal sactions and isolation was applied, many Western countries were employing "constructive dialog", "friendly involvement" and such, not unlike what you support in the Middle East and they even claimed some "results" and "successes" in it, like construction of those reservations, i.e. "Bantustans". History likes to repeat itself especially with those who wouldn't learn. No one has an unbiased view of the situation least of all you. And now you're using this childish ploy of bouncing back the argument, yet it's demonstratably false because unlike you I do admit facts and arguments based on logic and reason, while you wouldn't, and here's the proof: Dobbin, do you admit the fact that while your advocated approach has been in place, there's been massive increase in illegal settlements in the occupied territories overall? Looks like things are back on track. Wait, you'll say that when we actually see the first real reduction in settlements overall. Based on your previous track record we only have a few more hundred years to wait. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
myata Posted July 6, 2009 Report Posted July 6, 2009 "Constructive engagement", Dobbin (Wikipedia: Constructive Engagement in South Africa). See you're even using similar terminology, and of course, with the same result (encouragement of illegal inacceptable by any civilized standards policies, such as apartheid, or creeping annexation of land). Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Bonam Posted July 6, 2009 Report Posted July 6, 2009 Of course there's no cost. Right wingers and Evangelical Christians aren't about to abandon Harper because he supports Israel. For Ignatieff to take the same stance as Harper, which he has, there will be a political cost at least among some Muslim supporters of the Liberal Party. Or are you in denial that Ignatieff has taken the same stance as Harper? If he has, that's great. That means that both people that have a chance of being Canada's prime minster in the near future hold a reasonable point of view. Quote
myata Posted July 6, 2009 Report Posted July 6, 2009 I agree that Canada should have a reasonable view in this matter, as well as all of its international affairs, but I'd like the "reasonability" to be based on some clearly defined set of principles (just like our internal affairs are based on Constitution) rather than that half intuitive, difficult to express and even more difficult to substantiate "natural" affiliation (i.e. in essense, gang mentality). Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
lictor616 Posted July 6, 2009 Report Posted July 6, 2009 Of course there's no cost. Right wingers and Evangelical Christians aren't about to abandon Harper because he supports Israel. For Ignatieff to take the same stance as Harper, which he has, there will be a political cost at least among some Muslim supporters of the Liberal Party. Or are you in denial that Ignatieff has taken the same stance as Harper? !? Evangelicals are staunch Israel supporters... Actually many evangelical sects accept the covenant status of Jews as living gods on earth... They see Jews as "god's own" and venerate them as superhumans on earth.. sample this: http://www.ifcj.org/site/PageNavigator/eng...ians_of_israel/ The so called Guardians of Israel- which is an organization who specializes in relieving the evangelical boobs in the US of their pocket money in order to make profits for a few zionists.. Then there's the annual mutton giveaway in Texas... yes, in San Angelo, Texas, evangelicals full of Christian luff for God's People, select 27 choice sheep and ship them, at "enormous cost," by chartered airplane as a gift to a small agricultural commune, or KIBBUTZ. San Angelo is a town of about 100 000 in west central Texas, about 150 miles north of the Rio Grande. Evangelical leaders usually whoop it up for the great airlift, and funds are usually collected from local GOYIM. The sheep are of a special breed, called Rambouillet, produced by the ordinary techniques of genetics to yield superior wool and mutton. The sheep are not bred for intelligence however. Ohg and neither are the evangelical mutton-heads who ship them. Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
jdobbin Posted July 6, 2009 Author Report Posted July 6, 2009 "Constructive engagement", Dobbin (Wikipedia: Constructive Engagement in South Africa). See you're even using similar terminology, and of course, with the same result (encouragement of illegal inacceptable by any civilized standards policies, such as apartheid, or creeping annexation of land). I haven't used those words. I said Canada's support is and should not be an uncritical one. I called your idea disengagement which is what is is. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 6, 2009 Author Report Posted July 6, 2009 And massive increase everywhere else. Hopscotch vision = tacit encoragement of creeping annexation = working against peace. I don't recall Canada giving tacit support to settlements at any time. Indeed, 70% increase in illegal settlements, and yes, Dobbin with your approach nobody could assure that the same kind of change won't continue, as it did all the while your strategy has been in place. Your strategy won't work. Never has. Never will. The roadmap ended settlements in Gaza and will now the focus will be on the West Bank as we can see now. Emotion cannot change the obvious fact that is staring you straight in the face no matter how you wished it wasn't there. I'm sorry if no one seems interested in your approach including the Israelis and Palestinians. And grabbed more land in the process, and with your tacit encouragement, indeed there's high chance that we'll see the same pattern continuing well into the future. There was no tacit agreement. Just as there was no tacit agreement in support of rocket attacks. Both sides tried to seek advantages and set back the process. And now you're into predicting futures, and somehow I'm not at all surprised that you now have that wonderful ability, along with universal knowledge and whatever else you'd like to claim. Not predicting anything. Just reporting the remarkable Thursday news that the Hamas accepted the two nations status. I am not turning bling eye on any violations of human rights, security or international law, wherever they take place. Recognition of any state by another state is a different matter as it does not fall into any of these categories. And now it's your turn to admit an accomplished failure of your strategy in dealing with illegal settlements in the occupied territries. The end of settlements in Gaza shows that process works. You should try some reading up then. Before universal sactions and isolation was applied, many Western countries were employing "constructive dialog", "friendly involvement" and such, not unlike what you support in the Middle East and they even claimed some "results" and "successes" in it, like construction of those reservations, i.e. "Bantustans". History likes to repeat itself especially with those who wouldn't learn. The majority of the world followed the sanations route. The ones that didn't were following there own Cold War strategies. And now you're using this childish ploy of bouncing back the argument, yet it's demonstratably false because unlike you I do admit facts and arguments based on logic and reason, while you wouldn't, and here's the proof: Dobbin, do you admit the fact that while your advocated approach has been in place, there's been massive increase in illegal settlements in the occupied territories overall? And the ending of settlements in Gaza. Wait, you'll say that when we actually see the first real reduction in settlements overall. Based on your previous track record we only have a few more hundred years to wait. Ye of little faith... Quote
myata Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) I don't recall Canada giving tacit support to settlements at any time. Why hide behind Canada, you, Dobbin, are giving tacit support to expansion of settlements by first refusing to recognize it exists, secondly refusing to admit that your policy of friendly hush-hush is not leading anywhere, and by denying the need for real, if necessary, strong measures, you're telling those people who are behind the expansion that your "not uncriticity" does not really mean anything real. Thas is tacit encouragement, and it's very obvious that you're advocating Canada to become complicit in it. Your strategy won't work. Never has. Never will. Now that sounds like a mantra. You should try it with a million dollars instead. I'm sure you'll get it. Always. The roadmap ended settlements in Gaza and will now the focus will be on the West Bank as we can see now. And resulted in a massive expansion of settlements everywhere else, about which you're advocating doing nothing, i.e. nothing real. Unlike your "focus" that is a thing of your mind, imagination, that is a fact of reality. And your refusing to even see it, and admit it, is a tacit encouragement of creeping annexation, and works contrary to the peace, Dobbin, no matter what you say about it. I'm sorry if no one seems interested in your approach including the Israelis and Palestinians. Oh you already asked them about my approach, or you just happen to "know"? There was no tacit agreement. Just as there was no tacit agreement in support of rocket attacks. Oh really? Should it read then that you condemn Israeli "setbacks" as clearly and strongly as those of the opposite side, the same Hamas? Is there an example of that we could see, like e.g. threatening sanctions (applied to Hamas), threatening diplomatic isolation (applied to Hamas), declaring somebody bad, very bad (all applied to Hamas), and so on? To me it looks like lightyears and lightyears of difference, but then, you see things differently, don't you? Not predicting anything. Just reporting the remarkable Thursday news that the Hamas accepted the two nations status. Thanks for reporting. The end of settlements in Gaza shows that process works. In less than 2% of reality. While miserably failing everywhere else. The new definition of success, a la Dobbin. Try to use it in your next home reno project, you'll have a lot fun from your blonde. And the ending of settlements in Gaza. OMG are we seeing the light of the day, finally? Does it mean that you're admitting it, even if implicitly? I'm full of joy (of course I never denied that there was movement of settlements from Gaza, it's like a fact). Now Dobbin, from here only one little step remains. Given that its been 20 years, and the settlers of Gaza counted for less than 2% of the total settlers population, couldn't we conclude that the pace of "progress" is somewhat wanting (1% per decade = you know how many years would it take to get to the end of your process?, even if it continued at that pace without builtup of settlements in other areas where our focus isn't happen to be present, and as it has been the case like always, since Day 1?). And therefore the strategy looks like a little tiny winy bit less than a complete, I mean absolutely 100% "success"? Ye of little faith... Sure, and now the only thing that remains is to show the results. Please call when we see the first actual reduction in illegal settlements in ALL of the occupied territories. With the current track record, I sincerely hope this board still exists by then. Edited July 7, 2009 by myata Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
jdobbin Posted July 7, 2009 Author Report Posted July 7, 2009 Thas is tacit encouragement, and it's very obvious that you're advocating Canada to become complicit in it. Now you're just grasping. It is obvious that you are very passionate and this is probably why you feel the need to personalize. Now that sounds like a mantra. You should try it with a million dollars instead. I'm sure you'll get it. Always. You keep telling me your plan of sanctions will work but I have not seen it happen And resulted in a massive expansion of settlements everywhere else, about which you're advocating doing nothing, i.e. nothing real. Unlike your "focus" that is a thing of your mind, imagination, that is a fact of reality. And your refusing to even see it, and admit it, is a tacit encouragement of creeping annexation, and works contrary to the peace, Dobbin, no matter what you say about it. Don't think I have made any tacit approval of anything other than not to tuck turtle and say "a plague on both your houses." Oh you already asked them about my approach, or you just happen to "know"? Think that we know the answer since Palestine and Israel have asked us to stay involved. If they thought your policy of disengagement and sanctions would work, they would have probably said so. Oh really? Should it read then that you condemn Israeli "setbacks" as clearly and strongly as those of the opposite side, the same Hamas? Is there an example of that we could see, like e.g. threatening sanctions (applied to Hamas), threatening diplomatic isolation (applied to Hamas), declaring somebody bad, very bad (all applied to Hamas), and so on? To me it looks like lightyears and lightyears of difference, but then, you see things differently, don't you? Until Thursday, Hamas did not even recognize Israel's right to exist and was committed to their destruction. A little hard to negotiate from that point of view. Thanks for reporting. And it wouldn't have happened if there was not a lot of work to keep going back to the table. In less than 2% of reality. While miserably failing everywhere else. The new definition of success, a la Dobbin. Try to use it in your next home reno project, you'll have a lot fun from your blonde. Whereas your plan would likely not have even seen that. Nor would it have set the stage for what is now coming. OMG are we seeing the light of the day, finally? Does it mean that you're admitting it, even if implicitly? I'm full of joy (of course I never denied that there was movement of settlements from Gaza, it's like a fact). Good. Now, you can support the work that is coming on the West Bank. Sure, and now the only thing that remains is to show the results. Please call when we see the first actual reduction in illegal settlements in ALL of the occupied territories. With the current track record, I sincerely hope this board still exists by then. You know this total focus on Israel and settlement and nothing on the Hamas attacks makes me think you have picked a side even if you keep saying your plan applies to both. Unfortunately, no one seems to be paying attention to your plan. Not even the NDP. Guess you won't be voting at all in the next election. Have to make a stand, right? Quote
myata Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 Now you're just grasping. It is obvious that you are very passionate and this is probably why you feel the need to personalize. In the absence of meaningful response on the subject of the matter I can only conclude that you indeed implicitily admit (by failing to refute) tacit encouragement of creeping annexation. You keep telling me your plan of sanctions will work but I have not seen it happen You've seen it coincidental with "change of behaviour" in South Africa and Iraq, that may not have been a simple coincidence. And of course you haven't seen it's being effective in the Middle East for the obvious reason that Western powers led by US have adopted the friendly encouragement approach, the one that so far has been a miserable failure (at least in attaining its proclaimed goals of removing illegal settlements and approaching resolution of the conflict) and the one that you, Dobbin advocate. That plan has definitely and demonstratably been a failure. You can insist on sticking with the failing policy if you're finding that smart and rational, or, if you're really and genuinely interested in peace, you may try to change it. Don't think I have made any tacit approval of anything other than not to tuck turtle and say "a plague on both your houses." You claimed interest in resolving the conflict (one could argue whether or not a bystander who doesn't really care, can be excused for to not reacting in that situation, but it's not you, not by your own claim), and yet your refuse to even admit, let alone react in any real way to a gross violation of one of the main principles of settlement. In any logical view, it is tacit approval and even encouragement of that policy. Think that we know the answer since Palestine and Israel have asked us to stay involved. If they thought your policy of disengagement and sanctions would work, they would have probably said so. Look I already commented on your use of that "disengagement" ruse at least twice, and your continuing it still only shows either serious problem with comprehension of plain simple English text, or desperation (or both). Until Thursday, Hamas did not even recognize Israel's right to exist and was committed to their destruction. A little hard to negotiate from that point of view. I don't know what you're talking about, but we were discussing your, Dobbin, reaction to various setbacks. So, again, why would Israeli "setbacks" cause much less concern with your peaceful policy, than those committed by the other side? Please stay on subject. Whereas your plan would likely not have even seen that. Nor would it have set the stage for what is now coming. Again, reading your crystal ball Dobbin? Why won't you try with a million dollars too? Let us know how it went. Good. Now, you can support the work that is coming on the West Bank. I'll support any genuine and real action toward peace, but the friendly hush-hush we've seen so far on the part of some Western powers, and now Canada too, does not strike me like one. If and when you can show real, actual and measurable progress in reality, I'll support it as such. You know this total focus on Israel and settlement and nothing on the Hamas attacks makes me think you have picked a side even if you keep saying your plan applies to both. And you're factually wrong here, because I point out the need for security and cessation of small scale attacks on every occasion, but of course, I cannot influence which part of what I write you read, see and comprehend. There should be no such doubts about the "friendly engagement" strategy you advocate, because it's obvious in the fact and in the act, that the transgressions and violations by your friendly side receive no real response at all, unlike those of its opponent. Unfortunately, no one seems to be paying attention to your plan. Not even the NDP. Guess you won't be voting at all in the next election. Have to make a stand, right? Even if it were so, would it be the first, or even a rare occasion when a crowd of people, or a gang takes it all wrong? Having a crowd, gang around does mean right, that should be quite obvious, no? I'll make sure to study NDP policy though and maybe even discuss it, thanks for the tip, what I'll certainly won't do is to support something I see no honest meaning in. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
jdobbin Posted July 7, 2009 Author Report Posted July 7, 2009 In the absence of meaningful response on the subject of the matter I can only conclude that you indeed implicitily admit (by failing to refute) tacit encouragement of creeping annexation. Since I have said repeatedly that is not what I want, you are just trying to make an accusation. It is like me saying your singular focus on Israel looks like tacit support for Hamas violence directed at civilians. You can insist on sticking with the failing policy if you're finding that smart and rational, or, if you're really and genuinely interested in peace, you may try to change it. Your example of coincidental change is not convincing. In fact, the sanctions you support often hurt the most vulnerable in the countries you mention. Sanctions did not change Iraq. The threat of military action did not change Iraq. The actual invasion changed Iraq but we don't know to what end and won't know for many years. As far as South Africa went, sanctions did not change that country. The Cold War was being fought there and the U.S. and the Soviets were prepared to play out their proxy war until one side or the other stopped. It was the Soviets who stopped supporting the military in 1990 and at that time, the South African government and ANC were left on their own to decide the next step. You claimed interest in resolving the conflict (one could argue whether or not a bystander who doesn't really care, can be excused for to not reacting in that situation, but it's not you, not by your own claim), and yet your refuse to even admit, let alone react in any real way to a gross violation of one of the main principles of settlement. In any logical view, it is tacit approval and even encouragement of that policy. I'm afraid that is an accusation made by someone desperate to bring attention to their own argument. Look I already commented on your use of that "disengagement" ruse at least twice, and your continuing it still only shows either serious problem with comprehension of plain simple English text, or desperation (or both). I call it as I see it. Your continuing sanctions until all diplomatic and trade relations are broken is disengagement. It doesn't work. I don't know what you're talking about, but we were discussing your, Dobbin, reaction to various setbacks. So, again, why would Israeli "setbacks" cause much less concern with your peaceful policy, than those committed by the other side? Please stay on subject. Why does Israeli moves upset you more than any of the other areas of this debate? Again, reading your crystal ball Dobbin? Why won't you try with a million dollars too? Let us know how it went. No crystal ball. This is history. Hamas said something they have said before. It is significant change and that is why others are starting to indicate movement at the London meeting. I'll support any genuine and real action toward peace, but the friendly hush-hush we've seen so far on the part of some Western powers, and now Canada too, does not strike me like one. If and when you can show real, actual and measurable progress in reality, I'll support it as such. Glad to have you come on board then. And you're factually wrong here, because I point out the need for security and cessation of small scale attacks on every occasion, but of course, I cannot influence which part of what I write you read, see and comprehend. There should be no such doubts about the "friendly engagement" strategy you advocate, because it's obvious in the fact and in the act, that the transgressions and violations by your friendly side receive no real response at all, unlike those of its opponent. All I see is the Israeli side of your argument that is all you write about. I have indicated that Canada needs to support the process from both sides and we have. We have to be critical of both sides when they falter and we have. However, we shouldn't use the threat of disengagement because it doesn't work. Even if it were so, would it be the first, or even a rare occasion when a crowd of people, or a gang takes it all wrong? Having a crowd, gang around does mean right, that should be quite obvious, no? I'll make sure to study NDP policy though and maybe even discuss it, thanks for the tip, what I'll certainly won't do is to support something I see no honest meaning in. I'm sure you'll find a reason to vote NDP anyway although they don't advocate your position. I suppose that means tacit support for their Middle East policy if you do vote that way. Quote
myata Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 Since I have said repeatedly that is not what I want, you are just trying to make an accusation. Nevertheless, that's what you get, as as the real, factual result of your (in)action. Words do not always relate to the reality as we already know all too well by now. It is like me saying your singular focus on Israel looks like tacit support for Hamas violence directed at civilians. You can say that, and it would be obviously and factually wrong. First of all, I do not have, nor call for a "singular focus" on any one side, but (how many times did I repeat it already? but this would be the last one) for impartial and principled approach. Which your position is so obviously lacking, because otherwise you would have been able to cite examples of real practical responses to transgressions and violations by your friendly side, while of course and obviously, such responses are common toward their opponent, starting from diplomatic isolation and .. you know it, being a (self proclamed) expert in the subject. Your example of coincidental change is not convincing. Yet you have no examples where one sided support resulted in a progress, and in the case being discussed it's a fact that it's failing miserably: - 20 years; - progress in less than 2% of problem area; - massive deterioration everywhere else The question is not of applying sanctions to hurt vulnerable, but to show impartial and balanced approach, while your strategy only encourages continuation of creeping annexation and therefore, continuation of conflict. I'm afraid that is an accusation made by someone desperate to bring attention to their own argument. Then you'd be able to name the part of the statement that is not factually correct. Which one it is, Dobbin? Your staunch refusal to recognise massive expansion of settlements while your strategy has been in place? Or the absence of any real action to stop the explansion? Remeber we have numerous cases of real, practical acts directed at the other side so in that context, even refusing to see the grossest violations by your friendly can only be interpreted in ne way, your being OK with it, i.e. tacit approval. I call it as I see it. Your continuing sanctions until all diplomatic and trade relations are broken is disengagement. It doesn't work. Yet I called for something completely different (see numerous instances earlier in this topic). Your seeing is wrong, and you should address this issue with your vision before you can make any logical argument here. Why does Israeli moves upset you more than any of the other areas of this debate? It doesn't "upset" me more than other areas, and I stated many times that progress should be made in all areas, but I'm intrigued by obvious and persistent lack of any real response to gross violations of principles of resolution by one side, and I'd like to understand how this strange pattern relate to the proclaimed objective of peace. Which I do not believe has much chance of success if problems are seen only on one side of the conflict and completely ignored (in all practical sense) on the other side. No crystal ball. This is history. What my plan would or wouldn't have done is now a "history"? How's one supposed to understand that? What you've already seen the results of all possible combinations and possibilites? That would make you divine, Dobbin, I'm really impressed! Glad to have you come on board then. No, not so fast, remember, you still have to show that, ie. result, correct? The first, real and actual reduction in the illegal settlements in ALL occupied territories. All I see is the Israeli side of your argument that is all you write about.... I have indicated that Canada needs to support the process from both sides and we have. We have to be critical of both sides when they falter and we have. Could it be because Hamas is already suffering serious and real sanctions, while the other side is enjoying unwavering and unconditional (in all practical sense) support? Both sides committed gross violations of peace principles, but only one is seeing any practical actions, so I'm curious how does that relate to the (genuine) objective of achieving peace? To any impartial observer such a peaceful state of affairs would appear quite strange, and hardly conductive to, you know what. However, we shouldn't use the threat of disengagement because it doesn't work. I've said all I had about your stubborn use of disengagement and I'll leave it to you now to say as many times as you want with no comment at all. It's obviously became artefact of your mind and I wouldn't have any involvement in disucssing your private matters. I'm sure you'll find a reason to vote NDP anyway although they don't advocate your position. Now reading minds with your crystall ball, Dobbin? How's that million $$ project going? Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
jdobbin Posted July 7, 2009 Author Report Posted July 7, 2009 Nevertheless, that's what you get, as as the real, factual result of your (in)action. Words do not always relate to the reality as we already know all too well by now. The factual result is the end of settlements in Gaza and the focus now on West Bank. You can say that, and it would be obviously and factually wrong. First of all, I do not have, nor call for a "singular focus" on any one side, but (how many times did I repeat it already? but this would be the last one) for impartial and principled approach. Which your position is so obviously lacking, because otherwise you would have been able to cite examples of real practical responses to transgressions and violations by your friendly side, while of course and obviously, such responses are common toward their opponent, starting from diplomatic isolation and .. you know it, being a (self proclamed) expert in the subject. And I can factually say that your only focus so far has been on Israeli actions in this thread. Period. Yet you have no examples where one sided support resulted in a progress, and in the case being discussed it's a fact that it's failing miserably: I do have an example: Gaza. The question is not of applying sanctions to hurt vulnerable, but to show impartial and balanced approach, while your strategy only encourages continuation of creeping annexation and therefore, continuation of conflict. Your sanctions approach would hurt the vulnerable. Sanctions always hurt the vulnerable. There is your balanced approach. Then you'd be able to name the part of the statement that is not factually correct. It is increasingly evident that your hostility towards Israel guides you most strongly. Yet I called for something completely different (see numerous instances earlier in this topic). But given no indication that it would work compared to a process under way that has already seen settlement end in Gaza. It doesn't "upset" me more than other areas, and I stated many times that progress should be made in all areas, but I'm intrigued by obvious and persistent lack of any real response to gross violations of principles of resolution by one side, and I'd like to understand how this strange pattern relate to the proclaimed objective of peace. Which I do not believe has much chance of success if problems are seen only on one side of the conflict and completely ignored (in all practical sense) on the other side. Your focus seems directed more at Israel. What my plan would or wouldn't have done is now a "history"? How's one supposed to understand that? What you've already seen the results of all possible combinations and possibilites? That would make you divine, Dobbin, I'm really impressed! Thank you. No, not so fast, remember, you still have to show that, ie. result, correct? The first, real and actual reduction in the illegal settlements in ALL occupied territories. I have shown your the process in place. Gaza first, West Bank next. Could it be because Hamas is already suffering serious and real sanctions, while the other side is enjoying unwavering and unconditional (in all practical sense) support? Both sides committed gross violations of peace principles, but only one is seeing any practical actions, so I'm curious how does that relate to the (genuine) objective of achieving peace? To any impartial observer such a peaceful state of affairs would appear quite strange, and hardly conductive to, you know what. There is that anti-Israel attitude. Hamas until Thursday refused to even support the process. Moreover, Fatah and Hamas were engaged in civil war-like fights. Aid was directed to who needed it in the Palestinian areas but it was a little hard to negotiate with people who didn't want to negotiate. I've said all I had about your stubborn use of disengagement and I'll leave it to you now to say as many times as you want with no comment at all. It's obviously became artefact of your mind and I wouldn't have any involvement in disucssing your private matters. Your disengagement has never worked. No party in Canada supports it. I can't imagine how you will vote next election but if you do vote NDP, it means tacit support to the process I support. Now reading minds with your crystall ball, Dobbin? How's that million $$ project going? I'll remind you of this if you do end up voting NDP. Then you can give me that million dollars. Quote
myata Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) The factual result is the end of settlements in Gaza and the focus now on West Bank. The "focus" IS NOT a factual result, but massive increase in illegal settlements in over 98% of the problem area, is. And I can factually say that your only focus so far has been on Israeli actions in this thread. You can say whatever you want to say, but it's a fact that while Hamas has faced real, practical and material sanctions for its various transgressions, Israel has yet to face any for its massive build up of illegal settlements. That the fact, Dobbin, and as we hopefully established by now, talking (yours or anybodys) does not change facts. I do have an example: Gaza. No it's not an example of a "progress" in any rational sense of the word because it was accompanied by massive buildup of illegal settlements everywhere else. Your special, selective hopscotch vision is very interesting, but again, it cannot and won't change the reality that is that while friendly encouragement policy has been in place, settlements grew by 70%. Your sanctions approach would hurt the vulnerable. Sanctions always hurt the vulnerable. There is your balanced approach. And your sanctions are already hurting most vulnerable in Gaza, where humanitarian situation is approaching disaster, while doing nothing at all and whatsoever to stop the creeping annexation that is contributing to continuation of conflict. There's your friendly involvement support, and unlike my balanced one, that has yet to be tried, yours is already failing miserably as demonstrated by facts. It is increasingly evident that your hostility towards Israel guides you most strongly. That general accusatory statement must be a substitute for a substantiated argument, did I understand you correctly? So, indeed you cannot name the part of the statement that is not factually correct. Thank you for admitting it, finally. But given no indication that it would work compared to a process under way that has already seen settlement end in Gaza. And massive increase of illegal settlements everywhere else, and overall. The balanced approach, as any rational, sane project would be based on specific, measurable objectives, one of which (note for the record: not the only one; others would relate to cessation of hostilities, both large military and small insurgency, and human rights progress) would be reduction targets for the illegal settelements in ALL occupied territories. Objective achieved, reward, failed, sanction. That's the only practical and rational way to achieve your goals, if you actually and genuinely want them to be achieved. Your focus seems directed more at Israel. It's very had to tell what may or will seem to you, but I already stated many times that I advocate balanced and principled approach that would monitor progress in all agendas of resolution, and by all parties, equally. I have shown your the process in place. Gaza first, West Bank next. But we were talking about the result, actual reduction of settlements in ALL occupied territories. I understand, it must be quite challenging to stay on subject in your situation. There is that anti-Israel attitude. Talking you yourself? Aid was directed to who needed it in the Palestinian areas but it was a little hard to negotiate with people who didn't want to negotiate. That is why real, genuine peace process should focus (not in your hopscotch vision way, but as a clear measurable and monitored goal) on a small number of deescalation agendas, like: 1) cessation of hostilities (both large scale military and small scale insurgency); 2) halt and removal of illegal settlements from ALL occupied territories; 3) progress in human rights; When / if people see real movement on each and all of the above they would be much more likely to trust and support peace process eventually forcing their leaders to negotiate. Needless to say that it's very unlikely to happen in the context of your one sided "friendly involvement", that tacitly encourages (by refusing to react in any meaningful way) illegal actions like creeping annexation, and thus delaying and compromising the genuine movement toward peace in the region. Your disengagement has never worked. No party in Canada supports it. And nobody is suggesting it either. You're talking to yourself, wake up, Dobbin! I can't imagine how you will vote next election but if you do vote NDP, it means tacit support to the process I support. I'll study NDP policy on Middle East and will report here as soon as I have something to contribute. I'll remind you of this if you do end up voting NDP. Then you can give me that million dollars. And if I won't? Will you give it to me, then? Looks like one sided strategies is one of your real strengths in this life (I wouldn't be so sure about actually achieving results). Edited July 7, 2009 by myata Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
normanchateau Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 If he has, that's great. That means that both people that have a chance of being Canada's prime minster in the near future hold a reasonable point of view. "If he has..." Do you think Ignatieff's position differs? Quote
Bonam Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 "If he has..." Do you think Ignatieff's position differs? I don't know, haven't looked into it. Got a link to where he states his position? Quote
normanchateau Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 I don't know, haven't looked into it. Got a link to where he states his position? http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/564094 Quote
Bonam Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/564094 Nice, thanks for the link. Good to see both our main party's leaders in agreement on this otherwise contentious issue. Quote
normanchateau Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 !? Evangelicals are staunch Israel supporters... Actually many evangelical sects accept the covenant status of Jews as living gods on earth... They see Jews as "god's own" and venerate them as superhumans on earth.. I suspect that there's a more compelling reason why Evangelicals like Stephen Harper and his Christian and Missionary Alliance Church are staunch supporters of Israel. The establishment of Israel is a prerequisite for the second coming of Jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism Quote
lictor616 Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 I suspect that there's a more compelling reason why Evangelicals like Stephen Harper and his Christian and Missionary Alliance Church are staunch supporters of Israel. The establishment of Israel is a prerequisite for the second coming of Jesus:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism yup wouldn't surprise me... all those 2012 apocalypse mongers (evangelicals and Jews) are bent on there ACTUALLY being one.. Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
myata Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 Nice, thanks for the link. Good to see both our main party's leaders in agreement on this otherwise contentious issue. The interesting part is that while violence by Palestinian factions receives well deserved condemnation, virtually nothing, in the way of real, practical measures, is being done about Israel's creeping expansion of settlements, that's been as steady and ongoing, as rocket attacks. Until somebody somewhere and somehow comes to notice that strange and unexplainable, though obvious and glaring disbalance in our purpotedly peaceful approache, I'm afraid we cannot raise high hopes for a lasting peace, no matter official statements of any kind and from whoever. Any honest agreement takes two sides and free will, but it appears that as ever, we're bent on imposing our will on others. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
normanchateau Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 yup wouldn't surprise me... all those 2012 apocalypse mongers...are bent on there ACTUALLY being one.. Apparently Prime Minister Harper does not deny some of his more bizarre beliefs: "End times thinking is a part of Alliance Church doctrine, based on the Book of Revelation. Prominent leaders of Stephen Harper's Christian and Missionary Alliance Church denomination, particularly B.C. pastor/author William Goetz, author of the bestselling Apocalype Next (book cover below), have been at the forefront of teaching that Jesus should return to save the sin-filled Earth in a cosmic cataclysm." http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun...x?postid=250271 Quote
Bonam Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 The interesting part is that while violence by Palestinian factions receives well deserved condemnation, virtually nothing, in the way of real, practical measures, is being done about Israel's creeping expansion of settlements, Israel's transgressions receive far more condemnations from the UN and from various non-governmental groups than does violence committed by Palestinians. You can easily verify this for yourself. Any honest agreement takes two sides and free will, but it appears that as ever, we're bent on imposing our will on others. The peace that Israel and the Palestinians may or may not eventually come to will be based on the interaction of those two peoples, not on what we want it to be like. Quote
myata Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 Israel's transgressions receive far more condemnations from the UN and from various non-governmental groups than does violence committed by Palestinians. You can easily verify this for yourself. So are we doing some kind of a balancing act here? As opposed to impartial and honest approach based on our cherished prinicples (back home)? Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.