myata

But how can you tell that, in honesty? The "encroachement" has been happening from Day 1 of this conflict, so there never been a time to test your theory. And so, one wrong indeed makes the other right? The attacks on Israel justify the encroachement, that in turn would justify the attacks and so on, to Day 1, to the original encroachement. Everybody's justified, hostilities never stop, peace is impossible. The only possible outcome with that frame of mind, I'm afraid. Approaching the peace would ask for something different. Hostilities should stop on both sides without preconditions. Genuine agents of peace should demand from all sides to cease violence and hostilities, in all forms. That is the only way to deescalation of conflict and beginning of a genuine dialogue.

As I already pointed out, I'm not trying to advise Palestine or Israel what they should do, although I certainly have my views about what would be positive things to do in this situation. At this time I only want to discuss what position should Canada take in this conflict. By any objective measure, both sides were and are actively involved in hostilities against each other, and to take sides in this situation would mean 1) possibility of getting involved in the conflict and 2) compromising our role as a genuine agent for peace. It's highly doubtful that either outcome would benefit Canada and the sides involved in the conflict in the long run.

If you saying that one wrong (militant attacks) somehow justifies another (appropriation of occupied lands), then logically extending your point to the initial cause of conflict one would have to conclude that attacks against Israel would be justified too, from certain point of view. Even more, with both sides having a grudge against the other, theere would be no resolution ever in that framework of thinking. The only viable option is for the sides to start searching for a solution acceptable to them. That would necessarily require to stop all major hostilities (no in good faith dialogue is possible while major hostilities are going on), by whatever side and of whatever kind. That would be the only credible position of a genuine mediator for peace, and the only one that could actually lead to a lasting peace.

"Weeks and months" is not a defined time or schedule. You can go ahead with your lexical charades for all you want, but the fact remains that none of your own references confirmed any schedule, and two explicitly stated that it has not been reported. That is a fact, as is a fact that you're constantly misreporting, misrepresenting and misinterpreting factual material, and you can be sure that every such creative instance will be exposed. That would be #3. You have about 997 more to go before you fully convince yourself (can't guarantee about the others). "Focus" cannot be confused with the dismal result, other that in your mental melee where facts and ideas intermix and replace each other freely. You mean to say that stealing lands, and everything else is OK with you, thanks for an honest admission, finally. And I said nothing about "agreement". Read one more time if you can and stop making things up. And I said nothing about "equivalent". Read one more time if you can and stop making things up. I said that both are wrong, and both would acted against by an honest agent of peace, which your supported agenda is very obviously not, because in all the years that policy of creeping agression has been going on, it never once acted against it, as you are making every effort here to ignore and apologise it. Except it does not exist in reality, as probably a dozen of statements here can prove, while your blindness to creeping annexation is an established truth, confirmed by the fact that in all the years that policy has been going on, you never once acted against it, and are making every effort to ignore and apologise it. And that is another obvious untruth. You could have stopped repeating those obvious falcifications, except you can't because there would be nothing else you could defend your fully bankrupt position with. Of course, and it will be always, as long as you're trying to ignore obvious facts. 995 to go.

Dobbin, you're the only one using the word. None of your references mention any schedule and two explicitly state that it has not been reported. Obviously you're back to your creative self, or rather never left it. Some things never change. Obviously you can say whatever you want but you haven't been able to point to example where I misrepresented my references. Unlike yourself (see above). And as usual, we'll just have to take your word on it. And massive addition elsewhere, dwarfing by far as you like to express, these positive developments. But you like to "focus" on little peanuts and ignore the steaming pile of you know what that's glaring you straight in the eyes. You had no issues with applying sanctions to Hamas so why all that shyness and consideration when your friendly party is involved? "Pushing" and acting the same way it "pushed" at Hamas for its violations? Why not? You keep forgetting to explain that paradox. And now you're saying that we're acting, so I simply can't deny you a chance to share with the board factual confirmation of this statement. So what would be the most recent real and practical act directed at removal of illegal settlers, something that's been talked about for over two decades (I hope we can avoid a discussion of lexical difference between talk and act - remember that million $$) Why was it only supposed to come at a convenience of your friendly party Dobbin? Isn't it a serious obstacle to peace by your own admission? If it is (really) so, why wouldn't you insist on all parties living up to the principles of peace at all times? Something does not tie up here. And we know exactly what. Your pseudo peacy words simply won't line up with the act of ignoring and tacitly encouraging creeping agression by your friendly side. That is a complex issue created non in the least by the way Isreal has been created decades back. Both sides will have to make their way to the final settlement, that would probably need (genuine) involvement by the world, in assistence as well as providing guarantees of security. Perpetrating creeping agression certainly would not bring that moment any closer, and ignoring and apologising it severely compromises our credibility as a trusted agent of peace (i.e. whatever is left of it). And Isreal keeps stealing the land. And firing missiles into buildings. And summarily destroying houses. And creating unbearable living conditions in the occupied territories. A genuine mediator of peace would insist on all sides to live up to the principles of peace. That very obviously is not your position. Indeed, evacuating into other areas, and building many more settlements there while you're looking the other way and celebrating non existent "successes". Of course that's obviously false and you read it so many times that either you are honestly unable to comprehend simple text, or deliberately misrepresenting, again. Two wrongs won't make one good, and a genuine mediator of peace would insist on all parties observing the principles of peace. Which is obvously not your position, because your task in this pseudo peaceful process is to mud up the waters and obscure the ground while your friendly side is going on its dirty business.

I'm not sure that point can be made in honesty until negotiation in good faith is actually attempted. Such negotiation would necessarily involve cessation of all large scale hostilities (it would be naive to expect that absolute and full cessation of hostilities could be achieved instantly in this climate) by all parties. Certainly massive buildup of settlements in occupied lands amounts to a major hostility (in fact, a form of agression) and ceasing all expansion of settlements, just as large scale militant attacks, must be an absolute prerequisite to any meaningful negotations. So far it has not been the case. Israel has used every occasion of dialogue to massively build up its settlements in the occupied lands. There has not been a genuine, in good faith peace dialogue yet. You're either ignorant of the actual situation, or stating something that is clearly untrue. According to the data posted here, there's over half million of Israeli illegal settlers in the occupied territories, and the number is growing daily. These settlements (both authorised by Israeli government and those they call "illegal outposts") are illegal by all international standards, and continuing this practice constitutes a form of agression against the people that populate these lands. That you choose to prefer one form of agression over another probably means that you have already sided with one side in the conflict. It can be argued whether such external involvement actually helps anything, but I would certainly accept it as a legitimate position for the argument as long as it stated clearly without obfuscations by various peace adjectives. I mean that the conflict was started by the way the state of Isreal has been created, unilaterally and without agreement of people who lived in the lands before the arrival of massive foreign immigration. However addressing the history of the conflict is not in the scope of this thread. Ever continuing expansion of settlements certainly puts a doubt on that black and white picture. If Israel stopped (or was never involved in the first place) its creeping annexation of occupied lands, its moral position would have been much stronger. And that is already an "us vs them" position. You're trying to justify one evil with another and that rarely leads to anything good. Sorry, you can't state it in honesty, until massive expropriation of occupied lands continues unabated. This is another form of agression which our friendly side has been involved in from the start, and us not noticing it, or pretending it to be a lesser evil, would eventually make us complicit in its results, and certainly diminish our claims to be mediators for peace.

I know that in your creative world words may have many meanings even contradictory ones, but none of your sourcs has reported a schedule, that is a fact, as is a fact that you misrepresented your reference. Many things seemed to you here. First you saw "settlements" where every single one of your own references referred to "outposts", then you confused quoting certain individual with independent confirmation of their statements, and now you simply insist on using different words than those your references provided, and yet all this creativity cannot change one bit of the fact, that while hundreds of illegal settlements are being built as we speak, all you're trying to pulll through is talk with unconfirmed schedule (feel free to peruse that dictionary) and unknown impact. Of course, the two wouldn't come close in any real world, but you have a very special view of reality where talk, thoughts and ideas (yours, mostly) do seem to come alive - in the literal sense. It only indicates what it stated. That the ministry was considering such plan in the timeframe of weeks or months. The exact meaning of that timeframe won't be known until the schedule has been defined (note that e.g. 100 years = 1200 months would still formally fit Barak's wording, creative not unlike yours). Of which schedule there's still no evidence (but at least two of your own sources stated that it has not been reported), so it is indeed a fruit of your imagination and creative interpretations. No Dobbin let me tell you that I simply adore "sources", but when you twist every single aspect of the source you're reporting, I simply cannot stand by. And please be certain that it'll happen every single time until you'll learn to present your source for what it actually states. by definition in your creative world, you forgot to add. That's why you like it so much, no doubt. Too bad for the real world that it does not live up to your pretty ideas for it. No of course not. We have alraeady established that Gaza project was relocation of settlers into other areas with massive addition of new ones. Peace with Egypt was a laudable achievement but it's in no way relevant to the fact that massive expansion of illegal settlements continues unabated and your pseudo peace process is not doing anything (and by all indications, isn't going to do anything real and practical) about it. I'm not getting that. You proclaimed that settlements are obstacle to peace, they are growing at a massive rate, and you aren't as much as moving a finger about it. One of the two Dobbin, your word, or your act must be wrong, that should be obvious by now. Finally you seemed to be getting it right. Indeed settlers were simply moved to other areas with massive addition of new ones, and I can see how it could have contributed to escalation of hostilities. But in your interpretation it probably should be seen as a gracious and friendly act, deserving nothing but flowers and gratitudes. I'll be very interested to see it in reality, please call when there's a confirmed freeze followed by reduction in illegal settlements in all occupied territories. Till now this simple measure of real success has escaped your "peace" process. Well you had no issues with applying that approach to one party, so what exactly would be wrong with applying it in a just and impartial fashion? Did you forget to explain that?

Your statement was about schedule, Dobbin remember? (you yourself stated it not two posts back, another coup of short memory?), and Barak didn't say anything about schedule nor about anything that fits definition of it, feel free to check the dictionary. You'll learn to report things correctly, or you'll be called on every single instance of your creative confusions. No, it's not reasonable because they are two different things (check the dictionary) and you should report things correctly as they appear in your referenced material, without adding imaginary stuff from yourself, or run the risk of being called on your bluff. And everybody can see the information for what it is now. One one side, we have a massive ongoing as we speak development of 2,500 famility units plust a few hundred here and there in East Jerusalem. On the other, we've got some talk about possibility of removing outposts, without a defined schedule and with unconfirmed independently impact. That's the way you want it, right? Act on one side, talk on the other, and they cancel each other, in your creative world? Yet it's you, Dobbin, you who stated something that does not exist in your information. You can pull and stretch all you like and the fact would still remain that none of the references you provided stated anything about the schedule, and some explicitly stated that it has not been reported. Guess who's been caught "with their pants down" here, and would use every twist and stretch but to admit the obvious? Of course. Massive increase of illegal settlements is progress and war is peace and truth is lie. What table Dobbin? The one that lets your friendly side go on with their creeping agression, while you get yourself busy blaring about imaginary successes having no relation to reality?

If agression is perpetrated by both side, in the form of militant attacks, or illegal annexation of occupied land, should we be supporting one particular side and as such encourage the agression? How much of a peace mediator would that make us as opposed to plain and simple, a member of a gang bent on achieving its goals by whatever means? That could be so, but maybe someone could actually try mediation in good faith before claiming that? Again, it may or may not be so, but would that really justify the agression continuosly perpetrated by Israel which we ourselves have declared illegal? If the act is illegal, something should be done about it, or it'll be seen as apology and encouragement of agression incompatible with mediation for peace. If we want to associate with one side in this conflict, we should admit it clearly without peaceful decorations, and be prepared to get involved in yet another conflict half world away which has nothing to do with us here. OK if you're into cultural apocaliptical clashes of civilizations, I understand that considerations of survival would displace any serious thoughts of peace. At a more relax times, one could start thinking of building some sort of understnding and even trust with even that "culture", because they won't be going anywhere anytime soon, and hopefully you wouldn't be either. As a hint, perhaps an exploration of recent past may shed some light as to what created the conflict, e.g. perhaps one took something that didn't really belong to them, and would hate to admit it.

Yet those were the links you provided in support of the statement. But even in that story that has been discussed in a completely different context, there's no confirmation to your statement that the schedule has been defined. Barak makes a reference to "of weeks or months, as opposed to years" (not "weeks ahead" in another of your creative representations), and that is hardly a schedule, only an indication of such plan being considered in the near future. You have to learn to report the references without misinterpretation, and till such time you'll be called on every single creative interpretation that does not correspond to the actual facts. No, Dobbin, I said and continue to say that there's no evidence provided by you that the schedule in fact exists and you can speculate to your hearts' desire why you haven't posted it, but I'll only accept its existence after you confirm it with factual evidence, that still has not been provided. Not really, that was a link within another reference discussed in a totally different context. Even then it does not state what you are saying, namely that the schedule for execution of this plan has been defined, so it must be another of deceits and misrepresentations you like to employ to hide by now quite obvious emptiness and bankrupcy of your position as a mediator of peace in any meaningful sense of the word. Relocations with massive additions you meant to say. The overall settlements are 70% up, more than double in some areas, and counting every single day, while you're busy looking (or pretending?) for those peanuts in you know what. No you'll never get tired repeating those obvious little untruths, will you? Could it be because there isn't anything of substance you can say, that would support you obvioulsly bankrupt position?

No, I'm not going to get into hypothetical shoes of these and that and advise what they should do. I'm only commenting on credibility of our position as proclaimed mediators of peace. Such mediation, in good faith, is not possible if one only notices transgressions and violations by one side, and completely ignores those by another. Such position has nothing to do with genuine mediation for peace, much more with gang style apology of whatever a member of the gang is doing. However we're talking about walk (pun intended). Talking while grabbing more and more of the occupied land is a hostile act, and cannot be considered as genuine participation in a peace dialogue. Just as talking while continuing violent attacks, to make it 100% clear. Any honest peace mediator should insist on cessation of all hostilities by all sides, only that position would be credible, consistent with principles of peace, and actually help in achieving a just and lasting settlement of conflict. Obviously, that has not been our postion by any stretch.

Ignoring the obvious dupe of "your side", the response has been given long time ago, if only you cared to read and understand it. What kind of "peace" and "concessions" could one talk about in good faith, if Israel has increased its illegal settlements by more than 70%, and none of the presumably peaceful mediators bothers to as much as notice, not to say actually do anything about it. If one retains a bit of open mind and independent thinking on this issue, one could not deny that no genuine, in good faith negotiations is possible while any one side still perpetrates ongoing massive agression against the other. Illegal expropriation and settlement of occupied lands is a form of agression. By refusing to act against this ongoing agression, we tacitly encourage it, and thus relinquish any claims to genuine mediation for peace.

You posted this reference (Washington post): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9072100213.html and this (CSM): http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0721/p06s01-wome.html and this (Reuters): http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090721/...rael_outposts_2 and this (some Russian agency): http://en.rian.ru/world/20090721/155573384.html and none of the above contains any indication of a schedule for the plan, but quite a few denials and explicit statements that the schedule has not been reported. So Dobbin, if I really missed something (and I freely admit that possibility, scouring this entire thread being beyond possible at this time for me), you'll kindly oblige the forum by reposting a direct, unaltered quote from the earlier posted reference, that would inambiguosly substantiate your statement that schedule for the reported project has been defined. In the absence of such quote, I'm afraid we'll have no choice but to consider your posting these references in support of your statement as deliberately misleading and deceitful, i.e. a fraud. So, Dobbin, we're still at Square 1: 1) The quote; OR 2) The admission of deliberate misleading referencing in support of your groundless statement Mea culpa, and I promise to never again underestime your power of logical argumentation (take that earlier classic that should go into the golden book of all time), or will (to see only the things you desire to see), or magical dexterity (of making things out of thin air), or perseverence (in denying obvious, plain facts), and any of the other great talents that I didn't mention. And you just forgot, as happens, and yet again, ... and again, ... and again .. to point to an example where persistent, ongoing and massive violation of peace agenda by your friendly side has resulted in any one real, practical act on your side? But given your easy attitudes to the reality, certainly your just stating that should magically change the world around us?

As has been pointed out already, those words do not appear in the two references you posted in support of your statement that schedule has been defined, so once again, Dobbin: 1) The quote; OR 2) The admission of deliberate fraud I'll make sure that we'll see one or the other here, because no sane discussion is possible if (alleged) facts are made out of thin air. And I thought that you exceeded yourself in your power of persuasion couple posts back, but looks like you can still find brilliant "successes" up your sleeve. Oh really? You've discovered multilateralism by lending exclusive support to one side in the conflict? If not, i.e. your words are anything more than just another bunch of empty meaningless (in all practical sense) words here, you would be able to point to example where you actually acted on that "multi" part, i.e. reacted (in some meaningful way) to massive ongoing violations of peace agenda by your friendly side. And so?

But of course he wouldn't stick his neck out for any reason. Good makeup and all embracing polemics is a lot safer bet.

OK, despite all obvious and glaring odds you still insist that there's been no wrong with that referencing? How about this simple way to resolve this thorny issue once and for all: 1) You post a direct unaltered quote from the references you posted earlier to support your statement that schedule exists, that clearly and unambiguosly state that it (the schedule for removal of 23 outposts) has been defined. In such case I'd obviously apologise for "inability to read what you posted". OR 2) You admit that posting of these references in support of your ungrounded statement has been a fraud. So 1) or 2), let's go. Direct unaltered quote or admission of fraud, please no more pointless words. Oh I see, you're implying that it's I and I alone am responsible for the fatal logical and factual deficiency of your argumentation? As we already established, being in a gang doesn't make one rigth. Take Iraq for example. But thank you for defining position based on our own proclaimed principles (fair and just mediation for peace) as "narrow". It just makes it so very clear that your words shouldn't really count for much, and your real "focus" should be found in your act. Which so far has been square on ignoring massive violations of peace, and excusing ongoing agression in the form of creeping annexation by your friendly party.

I'm of a more optimistic view, but it could take time and in all likelihood, a lot of it too. Straightening things out may shorten it even if one little bit at a time.

Unless you own it up and apologise, no further reference from you can be trusted by anybody on this board. OK, it isn't related to the topic, and you simply have nothing else of substance to say here. World isn't made of political parties only, but some of them are apt to jump on bandwagon to catch up with the established opinion. You're clearly showing that that's exactly that your party would do, and that's why it has nothing to contribute to establishment of Canada's independent and strong standing for principles and peace on the international stage.

No talking could hide the fact that you stated something directly opposite to the reference you provided and that's a fraud, as obvious as one can be. You can't hide it now or pretend that it did not happen, or meant something else, but you can own it up and apologise to the board for wasting readers time on your groundless fantasies. And it's anyhow related to the topic being discussed? Maybe taking the place of the other, relevant and rational arguments on your part, that still could not be found at this time? Not overlooking but pointing out the exact nature of your style of discussing, for whatever it's worth. Oh don't worry, eventually the truth will dawn on everybody, even on Conservatives and Liberals (like with apartheid; global warming; Iraq; and so on). It may take time of course, but that's the advantage of a principled position that it doesn't depend that much on the wind of the day, and doesn't need confusions, deceptions, selective visions and such to maintain its course or claim to life.

Dobbin, this report, referenced by you: Washington Post July 21st contains no reference to "weeks ahead" in the context of schedule for the alleged removal of outposts. Are you trying to hide one obvious fraud (referencing material in support of you statement that schedule has been defined, while it said directly opposite) with yet another one? That would be a sad, but very predictable progression for you, because your position simply cannot be supported by any factual, credible evidence. And so, rounding it all up: 1) Obviously fradulent arguments 2) Personal attacks 3) Obvious falsifications of opponents position. is all that you're left with. This is no surprise because when your talk is hugely, directly opposite to your act, you always run the risk of being called on it, and lacking the courage to admit your actual, true position clearly and openly, you're necessarily reduced to employing deceipt, confusions, gimmycks and ploys in an attempt to hide the truth. That should by now become glaring and obvious: your position is that of an intimate association with one side in the conflict, it has nothing to do with genuine mediation for peace, and everything - with ideologically driven support of your friendly party in whatever they do, i.e., a gang.

What of the above mentions anything about "schedule"? Your reference has said (as cited in the previous post) something directly opposite from what you claimed it to. That is a deliberate and conscious fraud on you part Dobbin, now there can't be any doubts about that. Perhaps only in that way can you reconcile the two logically and rationally irreconcilable things, your talking of peace and your acting like an intimate associate of one of the sides in the conflict. Drop the pretense and call things their own names, state that you'll support, excuse and apologise Israel in whatever they do, peace or no peace having nothing to do with it. It won't even require any change in your position, you're already doing as much, just a little honesty and courage that's all. Of course you can always stick with you ridiculous "can't see the obvious" approach and try to hide with your now famous confustions, gimmycks and ploys very obvious fact that your completely out of anything with a grain of factuality or rationality to supprt your bankrupt position. And you are proven to have used fradulent means to substantiate your ungrounded statements, so that's a fraud as clear as one goes, no fingerpointing could hide that. And you're reduced to using obvious fraud you know why Dobbin, because your position is undefendable by any factual and rational means, because your peaceful statements have no ground in reality. Find some honesty and courage and admit the obviuos, that your position is to support one side in the conflict, fully and unconditionally, and has nothing to do with peace. Your polemics is proving useless, it can't hold any more holes and there isn't a grain of fact or logic that could still support it. My, looks like you've managed to find a good peanut in a pile of steaming and stinking dung, great "success", Dobbin! What power of logic Dobbin, you're really exceeding yourself and breaking out of all bounds! What heights of polemics will you reach what you discover your full potential?! (on the other thought though, you've already hit the absolute "success" a few pages back, so I'm afraid this is the end of the road as far as any meaningful discussion on your side could go). Comparing with the role we played internationally decades back, the downward trend is obvous. Canada is losing its independent voice, its position is quickly becoming that of alignment and following, and it's very obvious that with this policy the Liberals will take it further in the downward direction. It may have signed papers and it continued its agression in the form of annexation of occupied lands unabated and your peace process barely noticed and certainly did nothing about it, and it means that in reality it has very little to do with genuine peace agenda. Just as the factual results (the worth of your talk being clear by now) are showing. Two decades, massive deterioration on settlements, several large military and militant escalation, what do you want from a "peace" process that has very little to do with real peace? And now you can look in your rosy mental mirror that reflects only your dreams or little pieces of reality that you want to see and sing and dance about great progresses you observe there.

I wasted 20 minutes of my precious time to reexamine both links. Here's what Washington Post has to say: And here's a direct quote from the Reuters article: The word "schedule" does not appear in either document. I think this should confirm your using of these references to substantiate your claim as obviously and deliberately misleading once and for all. I will not address any further references on you part until you withdraw the statement as unsubstantiated) and apologise for deliberately misleading use of references to the board where people may have wasted time reading something that by indication is an unsubstantiated blabber. OMG, just because you didn't hear anything else, this one that you want to hear must be true. Very smart! But of course just another pointless talk, everybody except you knows and understand the meaning of "independently verified". I'm sorry I can't waste my time of meaningless blabber that follows. Very obviously you're out of all meaningful, rational arguments. Your mental focus is not a substiture for a factual result. What about 70% increase in settlements overall, is it verifyable? And your absolute inaction about it, no, utmost reluctance to even admit it, would it be veifyable (very obviously, by this very discussion) also? And what would it make of your ostensibly "peaceful" mediation, verifyably in practical terms? Tacit encouragement of creeping annexation perhaps? An agreession in the form of illegal appropriation of occupied land? Some real peaceniks here! And we have no problem acting against the militant violence, but the settlements... What Dobbin? Why settlements appears to be a totally different story by how you act, not what you say? And now you are speaking for the whole of Canada. Could you name be "Michael" by any chance? Or is the illusion of future grandeur is spreading wide and deep in your party these days? And that would be disastrous if not fatal for Canada's image as and independent and trusted broker of peace, because as we speak Israel is busy with appropriating more of the occupied land at an accelerating pace, and Canada support would mean tacit approval of these illegal and far from peaceful policies. Your acts speak for themselves far more than your words, and everybody in the world sees what we have to say. It's only sad for this country that your party has nothing to offer that would be different from the Harpers policies here in this matter also. And that would make ongoing illegal annexation of land by Isreal more acceptable, maybe even desirable, would it If not, why aren't you bothering doing anything about it (unlike about Hamas militancy)? And in this land we see persistent, massive and ongoing expansion of settlements and very clearly you aren't going to do anything about it, and if it were possible at all, wouldn't as much as have noticed it. Of course this simple fact should eliminate all doubts about how much common your plan has to do with genuine peace mediation.

You said that the schedule "was defined" and provided a reference that contained no such definition. Retract the statement now and say as all leading news sources do that no confirmed schedule is known for this project, or look like you stubbornly insist on using obviously false information to support your ungrounded statement. 996. The Post quoted leader of settlers with the number, and you're trying to make it appear as if they're taking any responsibility for the number itself. You have nowhere to go now to either deny the obvious, or admit to another (unless fully conscious and deliberatie) confusion. Yet again. According to the leader of settlers, as quoted by the newspaper. And you're jumping to his every word without even trying to obtain independent confirmation. Your simpathies are very clear no matter what and how much you'd like to say otherwise. It should certainly be obvious to anybody with a grain of objectivity, that information from a party with direct vested interest cannot be taken as true without independent confirmation. What you're jumping to take it as such, tells very clearly where your real interests are vested. Of course and you could have made it hundred thousand or two or five, and it would still have the same zero credibility as the number you posted. You said there was a schedule, and there was none shown. Yet another confusion or a fraud, Dobbin? I said what I said very clearly but if you can't understand plain language there's very little I can do for you. Try rereading it. Again and again. Till it finally dawns on you. I'm not in the business of believing, but my estimate was based on data provided by respected professional news agency first hand, unlike yours, for that the sole source is a party with a direct vested interest in having the number as high as possible. That you so much prefer to chose one (vested interest) over the independent and professional agency tells volumes about how genuine your interest in real peace is. As real as was the addition of some 30,000 more, and that is the part you don't even want to notice, not to mention do anything real and practical about. "Relocating with massive addition" is the real word, Dobbin. Whatever table it was, it was not a genuine, in good faith peace process. I know you've got to do with what you have, everything goes. Even if not much as it is. No, only real, measurable progress. Actual, verifyable halt of expansion, and reduction in illegal settlements. Something your ostensibly "peace" related plan simply has not been able to deliver over two decades it's been in place. I won't be surprises if you're seeing things, but I'm only interested in reality, i.e. something that can be confirmed with facts. If 70% increase in illegal settlements overall is a "success" it is also a token of how much that process have to do with genuine peace agenda. What table, Dobbin? The one that lets it continue expansion of settlements full speed? It wouldn't be a genuine peace table, and your pretending so, and ignoring their abuses of peace agendas, only speaks for where your real interest is in this matter. If they talk the same way (and with the same results) as Israel has about its settlements, I wouldn't raise any hopes for real progress in this conflict for a long time.

Dobbin, you said that the schedule has been defined and provided a reference that did not contained such definition, which is deliiberately misleading. I'm not surprised that this seems to be the only arguments left in your disposal, because for all meaningful, in good faith dispute your postition is undefendable. He did not defined schedule, and neither did your source so is it another confustion Dobbin, or deliberate fraud and are you going to retract the statement that the schedule exists? I have no problem with Washington Post, it clearly stated what it did, and it's you who are trying to sell it for something entirely different. To understand where your real, genuine postion we really need now to explore your motives for doing that, so Dobbin, why do you need deceiving, misleading and confusing arguments to support your postion. Could it not be stand otherwise, verified by facts and information from credible sources? 999. It's your responsibility to substantiate your points with credible references, not mine. I'm very happy with the link, but not your misleading representation of it. The source of the information is the leader of illegal settlers and your stubborn association with it tells better than any words, where your actual interests are vested in this affairs. 998. It's your responsibility to substantiate your points with credible references, not mine. No, Dobbin, 8,000 according to Wallerstain, as reported by Washington Post. It's obvious by now to everybody, but you simply cannot admit it, as any number of obvious facts you had problems with earlier in this discussion. I clearly said that it was an estimate, but the number 8,000 along with the "dwarfing" claim came from you and you only, and so it's your responsibility to substantiate the number with credible factual references, or retract it as yet another unconfirmed hearsay. 995 Except you cannot prove it, but who cares, right? Just believe. How's that million $$ doing there in your bank, have you tried hard enough (to believe) today? 994. Of course they did, and they verified that Mr.W said what he said, but you were trying to sell it for something they never said, and now cannot admit it, so keep denying obvious fact yet again Dobbin, you have 993 to go. And of course this instance have nothing to do with Deepthroat or flying saucer or Myami trio, the newspaper quoted an individual as saying something, but you are desperately trying to pull it somehow that they take any responsibility for what he said. That is ridiculous as any denial of an obvious fact, but I guess you don't have much of a choice at this time, do you? Of course I'm saying that if the number had been confirmed by any independent sources, the news agency would have reported it as such, yet all we have is a quote by Mr Wallerstein, and everything else, Dobbin, is your smokescreens, confusions, and misunderstandings. I know but we were talking about you, so why you aren't doing anything of real, practical value when settlements keep expanding as they are now? I can't speak for them, but you, Dobbin, yourself have defined expansion of settlements as a serious obstacle to peace, and yet you can't imagine doing anything about it, so one of the two, Dobbin, your word, or your act must be false, which one? If there's been no massive increase in settlements elsewhere one could speak of "evacuation" in a meaningful sense. As it happened, "relocation with massive addition" seems to be a much more fitting descirption of what happened, and only somene with a vested interest in one side could possibly see it as a positive development. Yes I know if it was just the talks and nobody cared to check the results, you would have lived happily ever after. No, I want the actual result, whatever is necessary to achieve it, while you seem to advocate pleasant talking regardeless of consequences. Guess which approach is more likely to lead to (proclaimed) goal. That may be so. They were, and are sanctioned. Appropriation of occupied land is also a kind of agression, yet you won't do anything about it. Why so Dobbin? Does it really have anything to do with genuine mediation for peace?

That is what the word used by you means in the normal lexicon, and you said that it's been defined and provided a reference, yet it did not contain any such information. So now Dobbin please retract you reference either as yet another regrettable confusion, or as a intentional attempts at a fradulent use of reference. You certainly want to believe that, yet there's no factual confirmation that such schedule exists. And the source only quoted Mr Wallerstein. Perhaps because it did not have an independent confirmation of the numbers and it's far more honest with respect to the referenced material than you. Nice strategy Dobbin. First you post a number for which you provided no credible confirmation, when asking me for a "specific reference"?! Gimme a break. If you want your point be accepted, it's your responsibility to provide factual material that confirms it. To help you though, I did post a report by a professional news agency, that described one outpost in significant level of detail, so it's your turn to come up with something more credible than a vested interest party for the source of your information, or withdraw it as yet another unconfirmed hearsay that you can wait to jump to take as blessed truth, without doubt due your unwavering committment to world peace. They checked the fact that Mr.W said what he said, and reported it duly. You're trying to sell it for something they never said, blatantly and shamelessly. No doubt because in your mediation for peace you simply cannot come up with more credible allies than leader of the illegal settlement activities. Nice try. You're responsible to confirm information you post, not I, Dobbin. 999. Sucked out of finger "information" does not become true simply becase there's no other, more credible data. 998. They verified that Mr.W said what he said, and duly reported it, and you're trying to make it for something they never said, shamelessly. So you admit that you have no factual confirmation that the schedule exists, and your earler posting the reference as proof of it has been fradulent? 997. They verified that Mr.W said what he said, and duly reported it, and you're trying to make it for something they never said, shamelessly. Any new party joining peace negotiation is a good development. At issue is that it has to be a genuine peace process which this one is so obviously far from, not in the least because it ignores, refuses to act, and tacitly encourages creeping annexation, which is simply another form of agression. You can't righteously condemn violations from one side, and completely ignore those from the other, without losing all credibility and simply associating yourself with one side in the conflict. Yet we're trying to answer the question why you do not act, and pretend to not notice, when Israel also violates the declared agendas of peace? We already did that, and now, what did we do, or do you propose to do when Israels continues massive expansion of settlements despite all your half hearted, pretense rhethorics? Again thinking for me, Dobbin? But here's what I tell you. I'm not thinking about Hamas, but about you, as a self proclaimed mediator of peace, why you are prepared to condemn and act against violations of peace by Hamas, but not when the other side violates them persistently and massively in their own way? Is this because you're simply an associate of one side in the conflict, and your claim to mediation simply has no ground in reality?