myata

They could certainly improve credibility of their peaceful intents by contributing to Israel's apology (for taking of lands without agreement of people who were already settled there).

Reality check: 500,000+ illegal settlers, counting on daily, "here and there". How exactly does that line up with "living inside its borders"? Are you making the first step on the path of fitting the reality to a prefabricated, foregone conclusion? Setting aside the questionnable issue of putting civilians in the security buffer ways, you justified the practice of illegal settlements based on the threats of attacks. Somebody on the other side justifies the need to fight on, even with rocket attacks, because of contnuing encrachement of their land. What exactly has been proven? Other than the fight goes on, and you just taken a side in it. Without, remember, yet providing any logical rationale for doing so. The other side has hardly proven it with their act of continuing illegal settlement of occupied land. That statement is demonstratedly false. There's massive number of settlers in the occupied territories and this policy does not abate, even in this thread there's been a documented confirmation of a massive current expansion project of 2,500 family units, plus number of smaller ones. So as a matter of fact, no, judging by its act, Isreal has not been content to "live in its borders" from Day 1 of the conflict. You want to equate an agressive word ("calling") with agressive act (stealing of land)? Or excuse the latter by the former? Another highly questionnable statement. Simpy examine casualties accounts of Isreal's recent operations. Yet again, "calling" may come about drastically different from acting. Another verbal argument. Right, and Palestinians never get killed in Israels invasions and retaliations, do they? What an argument. I'm right because I'm real entity for peace and so I have to be right. Let's round it up though. So we have militant attacks and a load of hostile polemics on one side vs massive, by many accounts of independent observers, unjustified and disproportionate, military invasions, continuing illegal settlement of occupied land in massive numbers, human rights violations in the occupied territories. I don't really see any one side coming out on top of the moral scale here, so could you perhaps elaborate on your choice of criteria? Why e.g. ceasing militant attacks should take a priority over stopping the illegal settlement practice? Why recognition of Isreal should come before its apology for the initial act that created the conflict? Please. OK, and now our inaction can be written off to the influence of Iran. Without offering any evidence that they have any level of influence in the conflict. No, "dialogue of peace" is hardly credible while trading behind your partner's back, and that's exactly what happened so far. Each time there's been attempt at negotiations, Israel has massively increased its settlements in the territories. So no, you haven't proven that any one side has attempted a genuine dialogue, yet. Just as any one side has acted in any way "better" than its opponents. So far it appears that your advocacy for one side is based on some individual factors and I urge you to either attempt to understand which ones (idelogical; historical proximity; sense of guilt for ancestors, etc), or find some better argumentation. Yet this act was very specific and it certainly played a major role in escalation of the conflict. I'm not sure burying it in the ground actualy helps to heal the conflict. Let's remember the recent apologies for residential schools here, in this country, or for treatment of aboriginals in Australia that transpired in similar, or even earlier timelines. So, admitting and owning the sins of the past is actually possible. Well, this is simply a position counter productive to peace because in the eyes of opposition it ferments the image of agresssor not only committing act of inustice, but also refusing to recognise and atone for it. There's less chance to achieve peace with that stance, because peace would have to involve two sides, the descendants of those who took the lands, and of those who lost it. Yet again, you want to equate words with act. Recall real practical isolation and blockade even for the fact of election of Hamas in the government. There's been not a single act from the West in response to these events. None at all to respond to ongoing expansion of settlements. That's a clean plate, as far as act goes in the matter of "not condoning Israel's agression". It speaks far more, and better, than any words yet.

Did what, exactly? 1,000 "brown envelopes" (probably less) by $2 (approx) = $2,000. Anybody (virtually) in this wide world could have done that. Quite possibly, Lord Black have given more in tips, on occasion. And here we have to spend more of our govt. hard earned bucks to figure out the mystery? Just because it could do irrepairable damage to otherwise impeckable image of Mr Tweedledum? I think if anything it could signify the end of (all meaningful) politics in this country.

Here we go, Tweedledum and Tweedledee pointing fingers at each other, trying to figure out who's more apt to employ dirtier tricks. Again. Surprise. Of course they could try instead to distinguish themselves clearly with differences in policies. If there were any. As it stands, we're talking about a fall election, but why? Would anybody happen to know?

Some seek solutions to problems, others - problems for already known and prepared solutions.

No it's been answered many times already, please do not follow the example of certain posters here and read the posts carefully, for the discussion to have any meaning. One wrong does not justify another in any way, other than maybe as a pretense and sought reason to continue the wrong. Two blockes hack each other one with a stick another - with a spade, this timeless argument could only be interpreted as "I can't stop hitting him, because he won't stop fighting me", and the fight will go on forever. "Security buffers" settled by civilians? Interesting concept from the side that only recently benmoaned the use of human shields by its opposition. Strangle parallels will we start falling into, if we begin (or continue, in all practical sense) to seek justifications for obviously illegal and agressive practices. We already know from the answer to #1, that once the justifications to continue illegal and agressive practices are sought, the hostilities would continue. It does not need the intermediate step because each side will provide you with an ample evidence of hostilities by the other side, and the rationale to continue its hostilities until the other side ceases theirs. What is telling is not so much intellectual incapacity to grasp this simple equation of human nature, but rather that implicit readiness to jump into the shoes of one side, and justify its acts from its postion. From all rational, objective view, we see two sides at perpetual hostilities with each other, following already discussed event, so let me ask you now, what rational, logical, factual reason do you see to treat any one particular side, as the better one in this conflict? Because all of your arguments above are centered around this implicit assertion, and of course, once you've already decided who and what is wrong, the rationalization will not be long to follow. OK, they've committed violence and they aren't going to apologise for an obvious injustice, so what makes you believe that they are still the better side in the conflict? Let spend some time on that You're trying to ridicule owning up and redeeming the injustices of the past? Well, that tells us all what you would have to contribute to any real agenda of peace, does it? Have it my way, or no way. Nothing original or new, really. Wow, it has not even been tried yet, and you're already blaming it for the failures of its alternative. Be careful how far you want to follow in Dobbin's steps, before loosing all contact with the reality.

No, it's right there, in plain English, and I can do no more for you if you simply can't see it, it's outside of my domain of professional competence. Many things seem and sound to you that have never been said, or have no reference in reality. It must be clear by now that your position can only be held by efemerial subjective biases, assumptions and deductions based or justified by coin phrased references in you mind. It simply has no relation to facts or reality as it has nothing to do with real approaches to peace. No, I answered, and you did not (on the coined phrase's meaning of the day). But as always, you're free to take you misinterpretation to any level of irrationality. I think it's pretty clear there can be no visible limit in that.

Or it's a very practical notion of absense of war.

That's because you seem to only understand statements that agree with your position. You demonstrated it numerous times throughout this thread. And this is nothing to do with me because it was stated very clearly what the apology should be made for. That you aren't able to comprehend it, says better than anything about your position and its actual vs proclaimed relation to true peace. Here we go, the ultimate moment of truth: a coined statement as beginning and the end of all argument. Guess what, Dobbin, because one will never know what precise meaning you put into it (out of a miriad of possibilities, e.g.: - the taking of land and unilateral creation of state was entirely legitimate and friendly act, that by all civilized standards should have only inspired hugs and kisses, if it weren't for incurably hostile nature of aboriginals; - it may have the right to exist in all or some - to its free discretion - of its "historic" lands - to its free interpretation; - it has the right to respond to any resistance to its ongoing expansion with overwhelming and disproportionate force, and so on), it is impossible to answer honestly and in good faith. Or are you really asking everybody to line up after you and shout big and loud "yes" to whatever you do (and don't)? See how freely you move, as a proclaimed broker of peace, between talking for Israel and talking for (presumed) peace? Is it because you've already identified that (presumed) peace with fulfillment of aspiration of your friendly side in the conflict? But let's try to not shift the "focus" for an instant, can we? You admitted, some posts back, that Israel presence in the territories is a serious obstacle to peace. So what exactly have been done, by you, to show that it's not just another of many empty words that you said here? Or could it be that you didn't really mean it? Understand, you absolutely can be a part of Israel's cheering band, it's an established and respectful position (us, the light of humanity against them, we all know who). What you can't do, is to pretend to be a part of the cheering band, and a great agent of peace all at the same time. So, pick one, or rather, admit the obvious, and this discussion will be over in a flash.

You're finding something to obfuscate even in this obvious sentence? What's "wanted" have to do with "justly deserved"? Siding here are only you. I stated from start that I do not side with any one party in the conflict. Most certainly, in your cave age "us against them" eye for an eye ideology it would be exactly like that. Civilized people, on the other hand, sometimes try to find ways to redeem and repair the injustices of the past with their acts today. Very obviously, by clear examples in this very thread, has not been our standing in this conflict so far. We have yet to see it work in the territories Israel deems within its direct sphere of interest. That double vision / double speak approach, that refuses to even notice these major violations which were taking place all throghout the past decades, in calmer times, as in more violent times alike, is certainly not helping to bring such time any closer, and therefore is not an example of genuine mediation for peace.

But you can't really state that because neither side has attempted to negotiate in good faith yet. You're saying that either not understanding the fact (previous negotiations, resulting in massive increases in illegal settlements, and resurgence of violence, cannot be considered genuine dialogue), or as an excuse for your friendly side to continue to be involved in hostile practices, and avoid genuine dialogue for peace. I already pointed out that there's no need to press the artificial agenda of recognition by all and everybody. The priority at this stage should be on deescalation of all hostilities and build up of trust.

I don't think that strategy pertains exclusively to any one nation, and so the slicing will continue, until alternative paths are sought (genuinely and in good faith).

I may have an idea, but what would need to be done about it is the real question: stick with the friendly gang and keep pointing fingers, or begin to unravel it one knot at a time? The second is impossible without being able to actually see all the knots and blocks in this complicated problem. Of course, we can decide to not get involved at all, and that would be by far a more honest option than the one we're exercising now, ostensibly pretending to be working for peace, while behind doors supporting and propping one side in whatever they do.

We get so obtuse perchance... when it suits us... how about an apology? For taking other peoples land without their permission or negotiated agreement? Anyways, Dobbin and the Co has certainly found their iron clad argument in the coined statements that are supposed (but dont' really stretch far enough) to hide the dirty affairs of the past, which they want with all powers of their combined imaginations to wish out of existence. A much more noble and rewarding position than to actually seek the approaches to peace, which would require courage to see and admit the reality and will and open mind to work persistently to reduce and stop all hostilities, regardless of which side is involved. No Dobbin, it's you who want "all or nothing". You want to pretend that nothing has happened, and everybody should just cheer and pray by your script, and won't ever admit, or god forbid, own it, that some wrongs could have been committed by your friendly side as well. Of course, there's nothing at all peaceful about this approach, it's cave age old "us or them", "see no evil from mine" gang mentality, and of course you're making it as clear as can be with every statement you post.

I sincerely hope that the chances of Canada once again adopting a genuine principled position for peace are not linked to the prospect of having a communist party form the government. I'd first bet on Harper reforming as a global champion of justice and peace.

I wonder if some party in a distant future and far far away country could actually attemt to win the votes of both communities with an honest, courageous and principled position that could actually have real impact on promoting peace in the region, and thus benefit both communities in a real, practical way, although maybe in longer terms than an instant it takes for a talking head to say something, then forget and ignore it?

Back to your twisting self, Dobbin? Making facts, quotes and sayings out of thin air? I said what I said and it's there for everybody to see without your twisful creative interpretations. You however have run out of all meaningful arguments in this discussion long while back, so the real question is, do you have anything else, of real, meaningful value, to contribute here? If not, why you won't just admit it and give up these useless attempts to brand your opponent an enemy of state simply because you don't have any meaningful arguments to question their position? It's obvious as a clear day and you're wasting everybody's time.

Obviously not, and of course I said it so many times that I'm really at loss what causes you to not understand it. Any approaches to peace could begin once there's certain level of trust between the sides. Trust cannot be built while sides are involved in agression against each other. Illegal appropriation of land is a form of agression, and it should stop before any approaches to genine peace could begin. Your "peace" process ignores this particular form of agression and therefre it's not a genuine peace plan and it's bound to fail as long as it pretends to not understand this. This is not to say that historical injustice associated with the original events does not exist or should be ignored or forgotten. Admitting it and offering some form of even moral restitution would also advance the agenda of genuine peace. Undestanding this would require genuine commitment to peace and courage, that your pseudo process is obviously lacking at this time.

If you want to call my exposing your dubious discussion practices "personal attacks" I'm really sorry you see it that way, but it has to be done simpy for the sake of integrity of the discussion, and the forums. There's little point in wasting time on discussing imaginary facts and interpretations that have nothing to do with the facts that were reported. And it wouldn't be the only thing that you don't or wouldn't see. 70% increase in illegal settlements would be just one obvious example.

The "trip up" is only in your mind. Israel was established by agression (massive immigration of foreign nationals and unilateral taking of land), it was responded with agression, and both sides are actively involved in various form of agression against each other as we speak. That you only want to see a half of that picture, the one that suits your idea of reality, is a trait of your mind and it certainly isn't "conductive" to anything to do with peace in real, genuine sense. To even begin approaching it, sides should abandon agression in all forms, and certainly your process that simply filters out one form of agression has very little to do with genuine mediation for peace. No, unlike yourself, I'm not selling, or rather, peddling anything here. Only exchanging ideas with other intelligent beings.

Come on, Dobbin, you really have nothing else to add here. Try again, and (hopefully) better, next time.

In my view, the first and foremost in this situation should be deescalation of hostilities. That should be a priortity of any honest broker of peace. In that sense, simply an admission of a historic injustice could go a (very) long way to calming the conflict on the Arab side. I could not agree with that statement, not while Isreal continues with its expansion agenda, which is nothing short of an agression, by another name. All serious hostilities must stop before any meaningful negotitations can begin. Recognition, restitution, guarantees of security, borders, are all matters for detailed negotiations, once the sides have established sufficient trust in each other, and are able to negotiate in good faith. The same cyclical argument that can be turned around anytime by either side. An honest mediator of peace would insist on cessation of all serious hostilities, no matter which side perpetrates them. I'd like to think that people would make their own, meaningful choices, given opportunity and the environment to do so. Many of Palestinians are ready to accept peace and start rebuilding their lives, as many Israelis would abandon settlements. At issue at this time is bringing the trust to the level where it may sparkle a meaningful, in good faith negotiations. For that, all serious hostilities, on all sides, should cease. Trust cannot emerge toward somebody who lops missiles at you daily anymore than it could toward somebody who steals your land behind a table with a big poster saying peace. I would hope that people would be able to make their own choices, for something that would benefit them rather than somebody thousand miles away. Support for peace parties in Palestine and Israel would increase in proportion to deescalation of hositilities and build up of trust. A trusted principled mediator could facilitate that process, just as one with unclear, hidden agenda could undermine and delay it. Eventally, only sufficient level of trust between the side could result in peace. We cannot seriously pretend to be helping in building that trust by our selective visions, strange and unexplainable conditions, and absolute inability to act when our friendly party itself is clearly involved in hostile behavior. Critising only may not be enough to stop hostile behaviour. West has acted against parties involved in militant attacks, and its accomplished failure to reign in the expansion of settlements, or even show one real and practical act to that extent speaks for a serious and obvious bias of its position. There's little hope that as it is, it can be of any real help in rebuilding of trust, and therefore to the success of peace process. Yet I think at issue is the hope and trust in peace process from people on both sides. More hope means less support for militant, agressive groups like Hamas, or settlements agenda in Israel. We can facilitate trust by offering honest, clear position based on principles of peace. Or we can continue our current course, claiming to be inseparable and unconditional (in all practical sense) friends with one side, and brokers of peace all at the same time, believe it or not. Specifically on "recognition" I cannot but think of it as just another ruse intended to take attention of public from the seriouos issues of deescalations. There's any number of states in the world that would not recognise each other at this time, and nobody's making any fuss about it, so why could it be so important to focus on it now, while actual serious hostilities are still going on daily, is beyond me. It's the same kind of deceptive, twisting and spinning policy that creates much work for those involved in it, and very little result on the ground. Any serious broker of peace would make deescalation of all hostilities on the ground their first priority because only that can foster trust that could lead to serious negotiations which would address formal and official issues. I'm afraid that it'll take us much more time to understand that simple calculation.

Well this is certainly as void of any arguments of substance and on the matter as a post could be (absolute "success" - yet again!), so I'm not sure how to respnd except, maybe, to note that it concludes the discussion on your side in all meaningful sense or for all useful purposes.

I can understand that position, and very obviously it will not lead to any peace. I wouldn't pick a side between two wrongs (and I believe it was demonstrated with facts now that both sides are in the wrong), or "lesser" evil, because it only delays the choice that would still need to be made. If it can't be made by us, it would only mean that we don't have courage, will and principles for it, so we'll have to delegate it to somebody in the future who would. Well yes, if two people have any hope of achieving peace, they'd have to accept the existence of each other. Does it mean that the past injustices should simply be forgotten, without recognition, and some form of restitution? Who do you mean by that term, "Israel's attackers"? All Palestinians? Do you understand that in any diffucult conflict there would be factions and groups entrenched in the destruction and violence? That identifying any one side with such groups is equivalent to saying that peace cannot be achieved? Or are just looking for a pretext to excuse Israel's own less than clear record? Because very obviously, that condition will never come true in many lifetimes from ALL those who you call "Israel's enemies"? Well, we can go far and wide into analysing what came first, and what caused what. My only statement is that if genuine peace is to be sought, then no kind of agression from any side side should be excused or encouraged, and a true mediator of peace would focus first and foremost on deescalation of hostilities. That is simply impossible without ignoring ongoing massive annexation of occupied land, which is a kind of agression, and an obviously hostile behaviour. To maintain that in this situation any one side is better than the other, and deserves unconditional support would be unproductive to peace. In the unltimate view, is there a choice? One cannot maintain peaceful nature by exercising violence. Let's remember that settlement has been a persistent, conscious choice from Day 1, not some fluke of temper, so the picture isn't entirely as black and white as some want it to see. What we do speaks for what we are better than any words. If both sides continue to use agression and violence as their options, then maybe that's what they are? If we wanted a real advance rather than look for excuses, I don't think there's much choice but to keep trying the acts of good will. Again, I'm not going to advise people what they should be doing, but outsiders could certainly try to develop the climate of trust between the parties in both camps that are looking for approaches to peace. We can do it by maintaining a clear and principled position for peace. Position that would encourage steps toward it, and react to any counterproductive moves, no matter which side is involved. We don't have it now. If we don't get it, the results in another two decades may be no different from what we have now.

It would be that (a fact) if it was present in your references and it very obviously is not, and even more, two of your own references explicitly stated that it has not been reported. But of course you can live with it and act as a grown up (as you think) because according to you Dobbin, massive increase in settlements is success, non existent evidence is a fact, and war is peace. How thoughtful.. and informative too. There's no stopping your intellectual might Will you ever get tired of repeating obvious untruths. 992 to go. Very thougtful and informative indeed. There's no stopping your intellectual might No need to apologise for your inability to read simple text repeated probably a dozen times as I would have nothing to do with it. The pleasure is entirely yours. Only because you cannot comprehend the meaning of simple argument, repeated in plain English multiple times. And have neither time no desire to do it anymore. But hope never dies. And now you seem to having troubles with understanding "confirmed" because believe it or not, you forgot (yet again) to actually confirm it with any logical arguments or factual evidence. Unless you believe that just your word confirms everything you say, of course you're entitled to that opinion, btw have you checked your bank account today? You can say that, or anything you want, but the bankrupcy of your position is actually confirmed by the fact that it's been a very long while since we had anything even resembling a logical or factual argument from you. Oh why did you stop there, without "confirming" any facts that I ignored? Here's the list on your side: - ignoring the 70% increase of illegal settlements while your "peace process" has been in place; - ignoring the fact of actual construction of 2,500 settlements on the grounds of some "approval" - ignoring the difference between "settlements" and "outposts" in your own referencing; - ignoring the diffrerence between quoting individual with independent confirmation (in your own reference); - ignoring the fact that none of your references confirm any schedule, and some explicitly state that it has not been reported. The list is probably incomplete. BTW that should illustrate the difference between "confirmed" in the common meaning of the term as opposed to "confirmed by Dobbin". I'm sorry that your memory appears to be failing you again, so I'll repeat one last time. According to the manual you seem to be following, a lie, no matter how obvious, repeated a thousand times would become truth. The counters are started evry time you state an obvious untruth and will run until you get them down to zero, or give up repeating obvious untruths, whatever comes first.