Jump to content

Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election


jdobbin

Recommended Posts

The "focus" IS NOT a factual result, but massive increase in illegal settlements in over 98% of the problem area, is.

The focus is factual. Gaza was first and the West Bank is next. The removal of settlements from Gaza was successful, the ending of violence directed from there not. With cessation of attacks, the process resumes once again.

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.

Hamas is listed a terrorist organization because of what its stated goals are which is to end Israel's existence.

It is only now they have taken a different tact.

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%.

The focus was initially on Gaza. Now it is on the West Bank.

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.

Canadian aid to Gaza was halted only when Gaza and the Israelis chose to fight and it endangered lives.

Aid has now resumed unless you know differently. Canada spend $300 million a year in aid to Palestine.

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.

Just noting that your focus is completely on Israel.

That's the only practical and rational way to achieve your goals, if you actually and genuinely want them to be achieved.

And that is what happened with Gaza.

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.

Well, all you talk about is Israel.

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.

And you don't seem to understand that it was a geographic focus first and moving to the West Bank next.

Talking you yourself?

I'm not anti-Israel or anti-Palestine. I support the process.

You support sanctions.

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;

That's what the process is about.

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.

And nobody is suggesting it either. You're talking to yourself, wake up, Dobbin!

Well, that's what you are talking about. Sanctions if Israel and Palestine don't meet your demands.

I'll study NDP policy on Middle East and will report here as soon as I have something to contribute.

Think you'll find no support for sanctions.

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).

My side is not one sided. Your appears to be very much so.

But let me know how it goes with the NDP. I can't imagine you will find success there with your idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean.

I mean, is / can our lopsided approach be justified by somebody else doing another wrong thing? Would two wrongs make one good?

Which principles? Cherished by who?

Those ones of "justice, peace, equality" and such. Those we like to trumpet back home and conveniently leave behind crossing the boarder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The focus is factual. Gaza was first and the West Bank is next.

And the nature of your focus is such that while it's focussing in one place, illegal settlements are popping up everywhere else. Hopscotch vision, Dobbin. In the meanwhile, factual is massive increase of settlements in over 98% of problem area (by population), and overall.

Hamas is listed a terrorist organization because of what its stated goals are which is to end Israel's existence.

And if we're truly and genuinly interested in a real resolution of this conflict, we would be focusing on practical agendas of deescalation of hostilities, rather than pressing our view of history. Very obviously to anybody who's read about hte history of the conflict that there were deep problems with the way Isreal has come into existence after the end of WWII. These problems will be healed by continuous and ongoing slow build up of trust, not by some act or proclamation. And of course the key in building up the trust is a position based on principles of peace, justice and equality, something that your advocated approach simply does not have .

The focus was initially on Gaza. Now it is on the West Bank.

Of course, and with the results achieved so far, only God knows (maybe you too, with your crystal ball) which new heights the illegal settlements would reach once your focus moves (last time they were up 70%. Any bets, Dobbin?)

Aid has now resumed unless you know differently. Canada spend $300 million a year in aid to Palestine.

That is commendable, but we're talking about impartial and just position which obviously does not exist. Hamas is being condemned and ostracised, while there's been no practical measures at all and whatsoever to stop the explansion of illegall settlements by Israel. And again, it's a fact

Just noting that your focus is completely on Israel.

So still can't name the part of the statement that is factually incorrect? That makes it true, Dobbin, and you know why, because it's a fact.

And that is what happened with Gaza.

Indeed, we'd only have to conclude that your genuine goal is to show off progress in one tiny perfect square of the problem and see nothing else (like those Bantustans in South Africa - all was nice and perfect there too?). Because in the vast majority of problem area, and overall, there's been a massive deterioration of condition, as anybody capable of taking in exactly two numbers (condition on 1993 - condition on 2006) would be able to tell you.

Well, all you talk about is Israel.

That is simply and factually not true as anybody who bothered to read and able to comprehend what they read would be able to tell. But of course you're free to talk to yourself.

And you don't seem to understand that it was a geographic focus first and moving to the West Bank next.

I understand perfectly well that your focus is moving, but in itself it isn't a result just yet, and with massive deterioration in over 98% of problem area and overall, I don't honestly know who would call that that a success. How's that reno project going btw, ready to put your new criteria of success into practice, there?

I'm not anti-Israel or anti-Palestine. I support the process.

When it would show in your act, not only words, and it does not. Your advocated approached allowed massive increae in illegal settlements which is a major stopping block for peace. By refusting to do anything real, and practical about it you tacitly approve that illegal policy, and therefore, in fact and in actuality, are delaying and compromising the genuine agenda of peace.

You support sanctions.

That is very simplistic way to describe my position. Try rereading it again, it's all there for you, and we aren't in SK where I'd need to read you aloud.

That's what the process is about.

We know you can talk, Dobbin, but what was meant is the real practical result, and it's the result that's missing miserably from your advocated approach, probably because it's failing to show impartiality and principles, and therefore cannot be trusted by all sides.

Well, that's what you are talking about. Sanctions if Israel and Palestine don't meet your demands.

...

Think you'll find no support for sanctions.

We can start with real, practical actions. Indeed aimed at whatever side isn't following the agendas of deescalation.

And if that simple strategy isn't supported, it'd only mean that balanced and principled approach, despite all words, simply isn't there, and therefore the real results wouldn't be likely to follow, unless deceptions, talk and megatalk, more smokescreens, but no factual, real improvement of situation on the ground. That's what we had so far, and there's obvious explanation for that, but again, as all logic and common sense, it could only benefit those who can hear it.

My side is not one sided. Your appears to be very much so.

But your act is. Word, or act, choose one, as they are so obviously far apart.

But let me know how it goes with the NDP. I can't imagine you will find success there with your idea.

I sure will

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Dobbin and myata might want to know Israel has approved another 2500 Settlements in the West Bank.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/08/2...s_n_227580.html

And the removal of 23 settlements as the article says as well.

There is a lot going in London now including talks of a much larger recognition of Israel by Arab countries but movement on the settlement issue is at the hear of the talks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it wouldn't fall into the area of Dobbin's immediate focus, we can all treat it as yet another great success of his advocated approach.

The success will be in the evacuation and removal of the other 23 settlements which dwarf the other announcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main thing is to support countries that are democracies as best you can. It isn't an uncritical support but if these democracies are threatened with attack, it is something Canadians must stand against.

The main thing in a CANADIAN election is to support the people of Canada, canadian concerns, canadian health care issues, canadian job issues.

CANADA, CANADA, CANADA

The support of Israel is a private issue for private citizens who wish to support Israel.

Ditto for any other people who have interests that lie with other nations, they are irrelevant during Canadian election time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the nature of your focus is such that while it's focussing in one place, illegal settlements are popping up everywhere else. Hopscotch vision, Dobbin. In the meanwhile, factual is massive increase of settlements in over 98% of problem area (by population), and overall.

Nope. The focus is now on West Bank whether you like it or not.

And of course the key in building up the trust is a position based on principles of peace, justice and equality, something that your advocated approach simply does not have .

I disagree. Your position of sanctions and disengagement will do nothing.

Of course, and with the results achieved so far, only God knows (maybe you too, with your crystal ball) which new heights the illegal settlements would reach once your focus moves (last time they were up 70%. Any bets, Dobbin?)

I'd day we'll see some changes this year actually. The 23 settlements that are being talked about would be a significant move.

That is commendable, but we're talking about impartial and just position which obviously does not exist. Hamas is being condemned and ostracised, while there's been no practical measures at all and whatsoever to stop the explansion of illegall settlements by Israel. And again, it's a fact

I realize that you support Hamas but they were not interested in talking until now. They were interested in an uprising and terrorismism.

So still can't name the part of the statement that is factually incorrect? That makes it true, Dobbin, and you know why, because it's a fact.

Your anti-Israel stance seems very one sided.

Indeed, we'd only have to conclude that your genuine goal is to show off progress in one tiny perfect square of the problem and see nothing else (like those Bantustans in South Africa - all was nice and perfect there too?). Because in the vast majority of problem area, and overall, there's been a massive deterioration of condition, as anybody capable of taking in exactly two numbers (condition on 1993 - condition on 2006) would be able to tell you.

And now the focus is on the West Bank.

That is simply and factually not true as anybody who bothered to read and able to comprehend what they read would be able to tell. But of course you're free to talk to yourself.

Actually, it is a fact. You have only really talked about Israel here and your solutions have been sanctions which you say are effective.

I understand perfectly well that your focus is moving, but in itself it isn't a result just yet, and with massive deterioration in over 98% of problem area and overall, I don't honestly know who would call that that a success. How's that reno project going btw, ready to put your new criteria of success into practice, there?

I realize you want it all and you want it now but that is not what the roadmap was about. It was about concentrating on one area at a time. And now the time is for the West Bank.

Even now while talks are going on, your solution is to quit.

When it would show in your act, not only words, and it does not. Your advocated approached allowed massive increae in illegal settlements which is a major stopping block for peace. By refusting to do anything real, and practical about it you tacitly approve that illegal policy, and therefore, in fact and in actuality, are delaying and compromising the genuine agenda of peace.

Your concentration on Israel and settlements while ignoring Hamas attacks is noteworthy.

Canada's position was for both to stop the violence and get back to the table.

That is very simplistic way to describe my position. Try rereading it again, it's all there for you, and we aren't in SK where I'd need to read you aloud.

It is at the heart of what your position: Don't do what Canada wants and get cut off.

We know you can talk, Dobbin, but what was meant is the real practical result, and it's the result that's missing miserably from your advocated approach, probably because it's failing to show impartiality and principles, and therefore cannot be trusted by all sides.

And yet Israel and Palestine trust us. How do we know this? Because they told us.

We can start with real, practical actions. Indeed aimed at whatever side isn't following the agendas of deescalation.

Our way or the highway. Yes, I know.

And if that simple strategy isn't supported, it'd only mean that balanced and principled approach, despite all words, simply isn't there, and therefore the real results wouldn't be likely to follow, unless deceptions, talk and megatalk, more smokescreens, but no factual, real improvement of situation on the ground. That's what we had so far, and there's obvious explanation for that, but again, as all logic and common sense, it could only benefit those who can hear it.

Your position is that Canada seems to set the criteria for solving other people's problems.

But your act is. Word, or act, choose one, as they are so obviously far apart.

I sure will

Best of luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main thing in a CANADIAN election is to support the people of Canada, canadian concerns, canadian health care issues, canadian job issues.

And Canadian security. De-escalating tensions in a part of the world that can export their fight to a much wider area should be Canada's concern

The support of Israel is a private issue for private citizens who wish to support Israel.

Ditto for any other people who have interests that lie with other nations, they are irrelevant during Canadian election time.

They are relevant to some Canadians and it affects their votes accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The success will be in the evacuation and removal of the other 23 settlements which dwarf the other announcement.

Not sure about announcements, but your logic certainly dwarfs all previous records of irrationality set so far in this thread. Addition of 25 hundred of settlers families and removal of 1 (one), is also a great success in your view? Whata kind of distorted, tunnel view would that be?

Unless of course you're now supporting Israeli view that unlike "outposts", the rest of settlements in the occupied territories are somehow, "legal", are you, Dobbin?

Now of course, it should be crystally obvious to everybody that real, practical removal of illegal settlements is nowhere on your real, genuine agenda.

(according to this link: NZ TV: Israeli outpost removed, an "illegal" outpost is a few families). "Illegal" means not approved by Israeli government, as all settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under international law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are going to have show me this 23 settlements that some how dwarf 2500 becuase I can not fin it anywhere and I looked.

It is in your own link. Follow it back to the Israelis press.

They just finished talking about it on CNN as well. All of this is being talked about at the London conference now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twenty five hundred plus, one minus. One step forward, twenty five back.

"Dwarfing success"

New record of irrationality, Dobbin.

New (out of many, many before) confirmation that with your tacit approval build up of illegal settlements will continue anabated.

New obstacle in the way of peace process.

Louded and admired by our great champion of peace.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about announcements, but your logic certainly dwarfs all previous records of irrationality set so far in this thread. Addition of 25 hundred of settlers families and removal of 1 (one), is also a great success in your view? Whata kind of distorted, tunnel view would that be?

That settlement is not included in the present talks. It is an additional 23 settlements.

Unless of course you're now supporting Israeli view that unlike "outposts", the rest of settlements in the occupied territories are somehow, "legal", are you, Dobbin?

Canada's position is that new settlements are illegal.

Now of course, it should be crystally obvious to everybody that real, practical removal of illegal settlements is nowhere on your real, genuine agenda.

That's what the talks are all focused on now.

Your position is Canada should not be part of a solution until every violent act and settlement are gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is in your own link. Follow it back to the Israelis press.

They just finished talking about it on CNN as well. All of this is being talked about at the London conference now.

I read the article this is why I asked there was nothing in there about 23 settlements, there was a statement by Israel that said there was no deal on a Settlement freeze yet but no 23. Give a brother a hand seriously it wasn't a long article I do not see how I missed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the article this is why I asked there was nothing in there about 23 settlements, there was a statement by Israel that said there was no deal on a Settlement freeze yet but no 23. Give a brother a hand seriously it wasn't a long article I do not see how I missed it.

Here is an Israeli response now that the meeting has just ended.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/167600

Defense Minister Ehud Barak told U.S. envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell Monday night that he would take down 23 unauthorized outposts in Judea and Samaria over the next few weeks and months. His office said that the meeting between the two was very positive.

Some in the Israeli cabinet are furious because they think they don't get anything from doing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada's position is that new settlements are illegal.

Hear, Dobbin is making clarification here. Not all settlements are illegal now, only the "new" ones. And because Dobbin is such a great talker, we can expect that the exact meaning of "new" would be open to negotiation, correct, Dobbin?

Our great strategy of peace. Just look the right way, and the progress will find itself.

Twenty five hundred (2500) plus, one (23 x 5 = 115) down. Need help with basic arithmetics, Dobbin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found it they updated the Huffington post page and the original was cached in my computer.

The 23 settlements were not named but sources in Israel say some are fair sized. We'll probably have to wait for the Defence minister's speech back in Israel to get more details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 23 settlements were not named but sources in Israel say some are fair sized. We'll probably have to wait for the Defence minister's speech back in Israel to get more details.

Apparently according to the New York Times, they are very small in size and many of them have been evacuated 2-3 times before and have only reappeared. But you know maybe Dobbin is a better source then the New York Times I don't know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/world/mi...srael.html?_r=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Canadian security. De-escalating tensions in a part of the world that can export their fight to a much wider area should be Canada's concern

They are relevant to some Canadians and it affects their votes accordingly.

This is utter nonsense.

One of my parents immigrated to this country, and my parent never voted in Canada once becoming a citizen based on what was going on in the country of birth.

Nor interestingly did political parties specifically pander to this ethnic group based on what was going on in the homeland, real or otherwise.

Opening a can of worms here, interests in other nations domestic policies are not Canada's election issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,692
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Gator
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Caswell Thomas went up a rank
      Experienced
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Gator went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Gator earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...