myata

I think the issue here is that the Liberals have realised that Iggy's face by itself won't carry them into the majority and they are now trying to be all things for all people. With phylosophical background, that wouldn't be hard to achieve, at least on the level of polemics. Would the strategy add or take away votes in the overall count, remains to be seen. Our consumer democracies certainly jump too easily to the same things they like to condemn and mourn in other times and places (unprovoked wars, extrajudicial practices, meddling in other parts of the world). I have high doubts any kind of a just and peaceful order in the world can be established with such approaches, and collectively, we may have a long road ahead. With both leading parties in Canada now exercising the same viewes on international policy (the one based on immediate benefits and ideological associations, as opposed to declared principles), it does not appear likely that Canada would take any significant role in these developments.

OK so you do understand the language, so now you either will post a quote from the reference that is defining the schedule mentioned by you, or admit that your using that reference as a confirmation that schedule exists has been a fraud. Till one or the other happens, I'm not accepting any more references on your part, Dobbin. No Dobbin, they only reported that certain Mr W., the leader of the settlers, said that there were that there were that many people in the settlements. So you are trying to deceive and deliberately mislead here. Why do need to resort to that to support your point? Perhaps because you have no other, real arguments left? That does not make the number quoted by the leader of settlers true. They reported what they did, but you are trying to sell it for something else. The real question is about you, why do you need these constant confusions, deceptions and ploys, rather than admitting plain obvous fact that your process has done nothing about the massive growth of settlements so far, and may be try to change that to make your claim that it has anything to do with genuine peace at least less outrageous. An obvious charade, so I'll start another countdown, 999. And also has most to gain from exaggerating it. And no independent confirmation. You must be so trusting, in your investment also. Perhaps you're making 20% now as we speak (according to your advisor, could his name be something like "Earl" by any chance?) OK so you admit that your reference as a proof of schedule has been a fraud? BTW how do you happen to know that it exists if it had not been announced? Because of your trusting nature? Because you can read minds? Or have a direct line into Israeli cabinet? Of course they checked that Mr W said what he said. That is what they reported, and what you're trying desperately to sell for something they never said (that there's been an independent confirmation of that number). But your very emotional and impatient desire to jump to every word of the leader of settlers (whose activity you in other times and other places ostensibly find a grave obstacle to peace) speaks volumes about your real affiliations. Would that change the fact that your process did nothing (and is doing nothing, in real and practical terms) about ongoing massive expansion of illegal settlements as we speak? You are not interested in a serious discussion of the meaning of "terrorism", only branding the side which you don't happen to support, to excuse the acts that otherwise would have to be found inexcusable and would require to act against, something you obviously have no intention of doing here. Coming to the table while keeping on with massive expansion of illegal settlements? I don't know what kind of "table" it would be, certainly not a genuine peace negotiations table. And it has and is being sanctioned for that, while the other side only gets as much as a shrug (once in a very rare while), and you still have to explain that "peaceful" paradox on your part.

Dobbin, you previously said that the schedule was defined: QUOTE (jdobbin @ Jul 28 2009, 08:03 AM) "The schedule has been defined..." yet your reference contains no such definition. Is it yet another creative confusion, or a fradulent use of refererences? The report by New Zealand TV describing one "illegal outpost" in high level of detail has been posted for evebody to see. If you wouldn't bother to notice it because it wouldn't fit your ideas, is entirely your problem and also wouldn't surprise me one bit. Yet what they actually reported was a statement by a certain individual on the issue. The individual who had every reason to exaggerate the numbers. Your using this report as a confirmation of the number itself, could only be one of the two logically: 1) inability to understand plain language; 2) intentional deception. Very informative. Still does not provide any independent, credible estimate of the number of settlers affected by this potential project (it's still potential, as there's no confirmation of actual schedule, is there, Dobbin?) And now the question is, what (if anything) is your peace process going to do about it (the continuous, ongoing and massive expansion of illegal settlements), Dobbin? The agencies reported the fact, which is a statement by certain individual on certain subject, but you, Doggin, you want to sell it as something else. See, it's nothing to do with the agencies, and everything - with you. So why do you want / need so hard to sell things for what they are not? Could it be because the actual reality would deviate so much from your grand plan that it would make it obviously empty and bankrupt? No Dobbin, I can't and won't give it rest until your every attick, ploy, charade and confusion are exposed as clearly and plainly as I could possibly make it. And the process that you support has sanctioned them seriously, but not the other side for its continous, ongoing and massive build up of settlements. Why is that, Dobbin, and what would it have to do with genuine mediation for peace? I never did, on the contrary I state at every occasion that all violations of peace agendas should be condemned and if necessary, addressed in a real and practical manner. You, on the other hand, only want to notice violations and transgressions by one side, and "see no evil" from the other. That clearly shows which approach is actually about genuine peace, and which one - unconditional support of one side in the conflict, gang style.

Dobbin, that article does not describe any confirmed schedule for the removal of outposts. I'm really getting tired of wasting my time on your charades, so I have to say, with all responsibility that your approach to referencing material in this discussion has been either severely confused (please specify the reason), or worse still, a fraud. And that is also not true. Washington Post and Reuters only reported that "Wallerstein said the number 8,000". This is in no way confirmation of the number itself, that you want to make us believe so much. Another creative ploy to obscure the facts. Your report does not mention these numbers. Do you have a reference to confirm them, or is it yet another charade? OK, you're willing to take numbers given by the party with a direct wested interest in having them exaggerated, over a report of a professional news agency? That speaks volumes about your attitude to reality, but we shouldn't be surprised by now, being yet another of many such examples. You won't see any fact that wouldn't fit your mental picture, and that's OK for you, but I'll make sure to expose every such incident as clearly as I possibly can. Wallerstein is the leader of the same illegal settlement activity with direct wested interest in exaggerating the numbers. What you're willing, no can't wait to jump to take him on his word, over the reports of an independent professional news agency should completely eliminate even shreds of pretense to impartiality of your position. Your interest is clearly vested with one side, no matter what it does, and that is certainly to way to peace and no role to any meaningful mediation. Right, just because somebody come up with a number you have to believe it. Very convincing. Try that approach in your investment strategy. 954 (to go) 953 952 No this still does not answer the quesion, why you, not Hamas, refuse to do anything about ongoing expansion of settlements, and even trying every possible ploy to pretend they do not exist. Once you answered that question, we can have a more meaningful discussion of the approaches to resolving the conflict, and the role creeping annexation plays in escalating the tensions, and feeding extreme factions like Hamas.

Nope I believe that gang style politics are still not the way forward now, at this time in the world, but that's not something I could change easily, so we could start a meaningful discussion the moment we begin admitting reality and use proper names for acts and events. On the contrary, if you read this thread carefully, you would see that the only thing I propose is applying same standards to everybody, in a principled and impartial manner. This way we'll have less chance of continuously finding ourselves in Dobbin's shoes, having to resort to all sorts of tricks, ploys, and simulated memory losses to avoid admitting reality that simply wouldn't match our lofty words.

Yeah of course, I want to reserve the right to decide which killing or dirty act is "better" than another, because that's how I convince myself why such acts can go unnoticed and ignored, and therefore why I'm better than the other guy, even if from any objective, practical measurement, I may not really look much different from him.

And if there's no place for standards and principles in our international politics, then it'll be all about serving current interests via gang like affiliations (I close my eyes to your dirty business if you ignore mine), and I'd be OK with that, if Dobbin wouldn't insist on applying to it lofty words like "peace" and "justice", as this is obviously the last thing such affiliations would be about.

I think it would be the only consistent position an honest broker of peace could take.

I'd like to think that at issue here is not that somebody else does or does not (all people may have their own and different ideas), but how we see it, and what we do about it. At this time, looking with a grain of objectivity, one simply cannot say that any one side behaves in a truly peaceful manner. Palestinian factions attack Israel, Israel appropriates Palestinian land in massive and accelerating amounts. In such situation, an honest outsided would insist on both parties to stop acts that go against peace, no matter where their private sympathies may lie. Failing that, I believe the right thing to do would be to withdraw all practical influence from the area of conflict (including massive financial and military donations to either side) and wait for the parties to find some approaches to settlement on their own. That is not what we're doing there though. We want to continue to support one particular side in the conflict, and by our prounounced principles that would require us to believe that they are the superior side (morally, democratically, and so on). Therefore we would have to ignore the obvious transgressions by our fiendly side, pretend what they don't exist, don't matter don't count and so on. Just as some posters here are so clearly demonstrating. What is the worth of such position? It wouldn't fool anybody with a grain of critical thinking, and it certainly doesn't help in bringing in genuine lasting peace. That makes it quite worthless in my view.

My, my let's remember that nobody has yet been injured, or worse still, lost their lives over this, so would a life sentence be really justified to even think of in this context? Dough could be safely kept in the bank (with unlimited default protection by the state now), but these folks wanted a few more %% and as everybody learned in high school, that comes with a bit of an extra risk, i.e no free lunch. It actually played a positive role in bringing the truth home for millions of other investors. As a matter of fact, having heard some of these stories, I'm starting to think that perhaps the psychology of this crime is not as simple as get the dough and run away. It appears that some of these businesses operated over many years and have good relations with customers and the communities. Maybe over the years the finansists come to think of themselves as unfallable, and when a wrong market strikes they couldn't / wouldn't accept the truth, and run into illusions (or delusions) that would keep the familiar reality going. A very common human behaviour. Making dough out of dough was never an obvious and safe business, and thanks to these stories, private investors may just come to realize that.

Correct, Dobbin, and that story too only mentions the plan (with undefined schedule) to remove 23 outposts, not "settlements" in your creative terminology. And the only context in which the number 8,000, which you jump to sell as a fact to "dwarf" the current, real and practical massive development, is attributed to the same Mr. Wallerstein. Thanks for stating it correctly this time, but it only confirms my interpretation of that story. I'll have to see the story to comment on it, but apparently it went missing on the way, hello-ooo? Could it be because by all references, your own inlcuded, these would be outposts and not "settlements" as you like to call them, for increased clarity, no doubt. Try to read it a few more (hundred) times and maybe the difference would finally dawn upon you, all hope is never lost. I would have used that term for your inability to admit the obvious facts and to understand and honestly respond to clearly stated arguments written in plain English, but not anymore, because by all obvious indications, attaining truth is not your purpose in this discussion, the sole intent on your part being distracting, confusing and misrepresenting your pseudo peaceful strategy that encourages creeping annexation and doest have anything to do with a genuine mediation for peace. You only have to repeat it something like 955 more times, and according to the manual you're following, it could just become true. What "table", Dobbin? Can one negotiate in good faith, all the while illegally appropriating massive amounts of occupied land? Can one mediate in good faith, pretending not even noticing these abuses, and certainly doing nothing about them?

And according to W.P. the fact is that somebody called "Wallerstein" (who happened to be the leader of outpost settlers) said something about 8,000 residents in some "outposts". Which you're trying to sell as the fact that there's a project to remove 23 "settlements" with 8,000 settlers. Which is obviously two different things, not in the least because a professional and credible news agency described one of such outposts as a handful of families. Which even then did require the help of the army to be removed. See, you really need me here to straighten things out for you, because you either unable, or persistently wouldn't admit plain obvious facts, and obvious logical conclusions from them. While it's becoming really obvious that truth and facts isn't really something your "peace" strategy is about. Maybe the spin to divert attention from, and whitewash the illegal acts of your friendly party (hint) is? And in your mind you consider your "laughability" as a proper substitute for a meaningful logical argument? You certainly should use this same commendable "argument" to a more profitable end, try e.g. "laughable is that you think that I don't have a million of $$", and go check your bank account now. No, I did answer it, but you weren't interested in the discussion. Most certainly, both parties are guilty in massive and persistent violations of peace agendas. Your "peace" strategy however, only wants to see, and react to, violations by one side. This is why it has nothing to do with genuine agenda of peace, and I don't think you could have made it any more obvious, thank-you.

The "source" quoted by it was a leader of settlers that you conveniently forgot to clarify, most likely to improve the optics of credibility of that "information". For which, let me remind, there's still no more credible confirmation. Yet again, Dobbin, these aren't "settlements" but "outposts, even in Israel government's own (but not yours - for enhanced "clarity", I gather?) terminology, and one of them was described in detail and pictures by a professional news agency that was duly referenced. But knowing your attitude to facts that wouldn't suit your mental framework, nobody should be surprised in your "laughability", would it be as "laughable" as 70% increase in illegal settlements over the two decades that "peace" process had its run? That's a childish "it's not me but you" argument, unfortunately (for you) having no ground in reality, just like most of the recent statements from you in this discussion. I know that having no real arguments left, anything will go. Another good one. Making good strides there, following great mentors ("lies repeated a thousand times..."). If in your terminology, "peace talks" can be synonimous with "massive increase in illegal occupation", it's just another ruse and smokescreen to hide the obvious conclusion that genuine peace is nothing this strategy is about, pampering to annexation ambitions of Isreaeli govenment is. Having seen that you could hardly be convinced to admit plain obvious facts of reality, that would not be my purpose here. Open up deceptive talk and expose your real position for what it is in practice, is.

Good that you agree. Because unlike your vague sources about vague and remote possibilities, that reference is a fact confirmed by a professional news source. Indeed we'll have to "stick" with that position, until reliable information otherwise is provided. "You" can guess all you want, even as my position has been stated clearly so many times and it's all about peace mediation in good faith that obviously involves presence of principles other than "see no evil by my buddy". There's no need to guess about that from your strategy given your obvious and persistent desire to ignore the reality that would not fit your rosy "plan". Serious peace talks, in good faith would involve balanced position on all main peace agendas. Because you're so obviously not interested in noticing major violations of one of them, serious talks isn't something that you have seriously on the table. The rest is of course facade, distractions, diversions, and smokescreens to hide that quite obvious conclusion. When there's anything of real, factual value to prove otherwise, we can resume this conversation. Till then, there's nothing you can say that would change the fact that there's been a massive, 70% increase in illegal settlements and "peace" mediators haven't bothered to do anything about it, and some would struggle to the last to even be made to notice it.

The only time it was stated here, in this thread, was in the Washington post article, the source of the number being according to that article, the leader of settlers, having all interest in exaggerating the numbers, and therefore hardly credible. And this is yet another obscure source from some Russian agency with unknown credibility. "Estimated" by whom, no reference provided. If you have the original reference, please post it so that its credibility could be verified, otherwise it maybe yet another "success" sucked right out of your finger. Correct, despite you stubborn insistence on using word "settlement" indiscriminantly, perhaps to make that 2,500 unit development sound the same as the makeshift hamlet (it's all in the sound, correct?) all sources, even Israeli ones, refer to this possible project as the removal of "outposts", and NZ TV described in detail, and provided pictures of one such outpost. Until there's credible information confirming your numbers, this is by far more reliable than everything that you posted so far, coming from independent, professional and verifyable source. Anything that seems, or appears or can be imagined will now go in your argument, because you're simply out of all factual, logical, verifyable information that may support your position. All because you want it to appear something it certainly is not, and anybody with a grain of an open mind and impartiality will see that instantly. Congratulations, Dobbin. You could hardly find a more convincing argument.

And despite all the earlier assurances and promises, you simply forgot to provide them? Again? Is it a sign of poor memory, or something else? I'll bet on the latter Dobbin, because as you yourself know there's nothing you can show that will change that very obvious by now conclusion that your strategy has nothing to do with genuine mediation for peace, and everything - with supporting the interests of your friendly party. Indeed, what "table" do you mean? Can one negotiate in good faith, all the while grabbing more and more of the land they occupy? Can one pretend to mediate in good faith, never ever noticing that glaring fact? You are simply grasping for any excuses to explain your own so obviously biased approach, to which there can be no logical excuses except the obvious one, that it's not about the peace, but supporting and propping your friendy in whatever and however they do. That is a very likely the real source of all the episodes of lost memories, strange visions, confusions of simple words, denials of obvious facts and such. You want your strategy to appear something it is not, and the ploys are the only way to achieve it, because in reality, in obvious plain facts, it is does not look like a peace strategy at all, because of its obvious, glaring idelogical bias. The genuine, principled approach is possible. Yet it isn't something that either of the political behemoth parties in this country appear to be interested in. Quite possibly because the days when we could actually show courage and independency to have our own voice are now in the past, and by now it's all but changed into smallscale shortterm political gains, tradeoffs, calculations and compromises.

Except of course, Dobbin forgot to mention that "Wallerstain" mentioned in his reference is no other than the leader of settlers and he still quotes his numbers as some kind of well known confirmed source. While on the other hand, previously quoted international news source, TV New Zealand, described an outpost (Dobbin simply insists on using confusing terminology here, correct, Dobbin, everything goes?) as a handful of makeshift cabins with a handful of families, nothing unlike that massive 2,500 unit project that is confirmed as being built right now, along with smaller quoted developments in East Jerusalem. That's our successful a la Dobbin peace statistics: - take 2,500 settler homes being built here and now; - subtract 23 * 8 families maybe and in the future as a confirmed fact; - declare a great success. Since the end of Cold War in the early 90-s, illegal settlements more than doubled, adding in absolute numbers over 250,000 and counting more each and every day of this "peaceful" process. What can be really added to these facts and numbers that would make them look anything different and obvious than they already are? This of course is as far from any genuine peace mediation as anything could possibly get. Just too bad that at one time long time ago this country had some claim to credibility as an honest, fair, and principled agent of peace. This is all but gone now, and certainly Iggy has nothing to add to this sad, but accomplished fact.

I'm much more inclined to think that courage, principle, independence is a matter of personality rather than any physical factors. And of course, a political system that encourages (or not) such individuals to seek a careers in politics.

In the old times, it (courageous, independent position based on principle rathen than immediate interest) would have been Canada's claim to fame in the international affairs. Not anymore, apparently, no matter who (Harper or Iggy) actually gets to define the policy.

I see. Because they said something that you wanted to hear, even though did quite totally opposite. No matter how many times they said anything, the settlements always grew. That we know for a fact, correct? That makes you biased, Dobbin. You do not wish to notice obvious transgressions by one side, your friendly side, and use any pretext for that. It is not a genuine position for peace mediation and you're making it more and more obvious. OK, let's sum it up. Both Isreal and militant factions in Palestine violate peace agendas, we have established it for a fact. But you prefer, help, and sponsor the side that does it covertly, even though as persistently and massively as the others. That sounds very much like your praised "peace" strategy, pay attention to what is being said, discussed, written into tonnes and megatonnes of paperwork, and who cares what's going on the ground. Or else, you're simply grasping for straws, anything that could help you justify your obvious bias and one sidedness. Because for a real, genuine mediator of peace, there would be no problem pointing out, and objecting, and acting against violations of peace agendas, whatever side perpetrated it, correct? That we know from kindergarten, commonsense meanings of "genuine", "in good faith", "mediation" and "peace". I'm not sure how much sense that strategy actually would make from any common sense point of view (focus on making things nice and tidy in a little tiny area, and forget about everywhere else, like let things roll completely out of control), but as long as we have a clear answer, at least you position would be clear, so again: if massive increase of settlements is fine and acceptable, from the position of that hopscotch approach, should a massive increase in militant attacks outside of "perfection" area be also tolerated and ignored. Or should we apply different standards of vision and action to militancy as opposed to creeping annexation (why?) But of course it is. You want to call some acts gross and inacceptable and ignore other, no more excusable acts as though they never happened at all. How much logical sense does it add to your definition? It's the same as the old tired "I'm good (and mine), you're bad". By definition. The conundrum could be solved very easily if you admitted and acted against all violations of peace. But that's not something you're prepared to do, because you know that your friendly side is as guilty as their opponent, and you'll never going to act against their violations, no matter how gross or massive they could be, correct? I admit that it's a militant attack that goes against peace. I believe that all violations of peace should be stopped to give it best chance to settle in. I'm not sure how much meaning and understanding the use of particular loaded words would add (or take away) from this simple truth. Maybe they think that "peace process" that results in further massive annexation of their land, isn't entirely "peaceful" after all? So you aren't even naming onging expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories, as an "impediment" any more? Once again, the bias in your position becomes very obvious. You simply refuse to see that your friendly side is also violating peace agendas here and now, but prefer to jump and point your finger to the other side. That's not peace, Dobbin, in any normal sense, it's a gang.

What's the "becauses" all about? Hamas wants to "push" Isreal with militant attacks; Isreal continuously pushes Palestinians with illegal settlements (see the latest example below). You act against one, but not the other. Why? And why have you suddenly switched away from "geographic" approach? Is it because you'd have to admit that the same "hopscotch" standard would have to be applied to both sides, equally? I.e. you'd have to admit that either attacks on Israel, outside of "focus" perfection area would have to be ignored (as they obviously were not) or your standards are obviously one sided? Ignored as obvious misrepresentation. The true meaning is not in the word, Dobbin, it's in the act. No, what you're always forgetting to answer is why you reaction to violations of peace agendas so strongly depends on which side perpetrates them. But you would not want to ever admit it, and that creates a cognitive dissonance that you're attempting to resolve with creative wordings, evasions, selective visions and other strategies that help you believe or pretend, who cares, to not see the reality as it is, but rather as you want to see it. I admit it, obviously. Now, has Isreal been a part of that process, I mean in a genuine sense and in good faith? And the other side is prepared no less, as their grossly disproportional responses and policies clearly show. The real quesion is not about which of the sides is better, but why are you prepared to compromise the true, genuine agenda of peace by ignoring gross violations by your friendly side. Think of Dobbin, as I'm going away for a few days, not please do not assume that this discussion is in any way over.

And the massive expansion of settlements everywhere else, and overall. You being so shy about it, I'll have to say it for you, no thanks needes. Oh, I see your point. Area by area. So you're saying that attacks against Israel from anywhere outside Gaza should also be ignored in that creative approach? Please say clearly, yes or no. You've got to share with us one day how do you divine that somebody "indicated that they think". But what is on record here, is the description of peace agendas, and one of them is reduction of hostilities, both military and militant. So my position is very clear, and has been that way since the first posts of this discussion. I'm sorry I have to repeat, that if you couldn't read, or understand clrearly the meaning of read, or hold it in your memory long enough, or hold yourself against deliberately misinterpreting what you read, it's your problem and it'll be made as clear as I can possibly make it in this discussion. Dobbin, you still haven't answered the question, why your acts against serious and massive violations of peace agendas, differ so drastically depending on which side have committed it. And now, with that recently found focus on "terrorism", I had a glimpse of something that may lead to a hypothesis, let me share it with you right now: the "terrorism" Dobbin, is a word that helps you to reconcile what psychologists would call a cognitive dissonance, in plain words, a gap between the reality and what you think it should be. You see, in reality both sides behave in a nasty manner to each other, and both sides violate peace agreements, each in their own, different way. But that is not the picture you have in your mind, correct? In your mind, you represent the side of eternal good that simply cannot be wrong. As so, are, by association with you, your various friends and associates. So something needs to be done to explain why acts otherwise wrong and inexcusable (by your own admission) should be ignored, excused, pardoned, understood, defended, and so on, in this particular case here and now. And then, one precious morning, you "succeed"! You come up with a word, apply it where it needs to be applied, and all paradoxes, gaps and dissonances are instantly healed. The principles, rules, justice, fairness, etc, yada, they simply would not apply because of the (word). Could that be a reasonably close summary of why you think that word is so important in this discussion? Because otherwise you'd have to deal with the fact that in your peace process, any meaningful practical act only extends to one side. And until you explain, at least to yourself, the nature of that puzzling visual and actual imbalance, I think your plan would continue to have very little to do with genuine peace mediation, no matter how many words you say to make it sound so.

Dobbin, you surely understand plain English? You, yourself said that reduction of settlements is an important peace agenda. So why nothing has been done in real, practical terms, by you, and your allies in this ostensibly peace process, against ongoing expansion of settlements as you and they had no problem acting against militant attacks? Is it because you cannot control your act? Or because you don't actually mean what you're saying, i.e. all this peace terminology is just a guise to cover the actual goal - to prop and promote the friendy at all cost? Because remember, words will never explain fully and correctly what one really means, but the acts (and inactions) do. Dobbin, I have no choince but to start ignoring these meaningless repetitions from now on, I stated my position very clearly many many times, in this very conversation, and if you couldn't read and understand what's written in plain English, or refrain from misrepresenting it, it's your own problem, just as your selective vision, and selective standards, and creative definitons of successes, and my job here is only to expose it to the maximum extent possible.

But it instantly begins to matter (and matter very, very much) as Dobbin's own democratic friend "continued" and is continuing as we speak, its creeping annexation of the occupied land. That's Dobbin's beautiful peace strategy in action: one set of "rules" and "standards" - for them; another (and totally different one, like absolutely opposite) - for the friendies. And it does achieve many wonderful "successes", not so sure for the genuine peace, but most certainly for Dobbin's great friends. Correct Dobbin? Got rid of useless chunk of land, massively increased settlements (by 70% overall and more, 2.5 times in their most cherished part of the occupied land) and got a praise from Dobbin for the great "success", all in one quick masterstroke. Quit pretending Dobbin, really, words hardly fool anybody anymore. Your process has very little to do with "peace" and everyting - with propping your friendy, that outpost of light and democracy and "our" culture, as somebody here spilled recently. If you say that plainly, we'll have no further argument here, and I'll respect your honesty. Otherwise, till you explain why nothing real and practical has, is, and will be ever done about continuous and massive violations of peace agenda by your friendy, we'll have no choice to assume it being the case anyways, as the most logical explanation to your act (and inact too). Despite all what you have to say, because words, Dobbin, won't ever describe fully and correctly what you mean, only your acts do.

Yet we were talking about genuine approach to peace, and in any honest approach, a massive breach of trust on an important agenda like that of the illegal settlements simply could not have been ignored. That your strategy does not even want to notice these issues is a clear sign that a genuine, honest mediation is one thing it is not about. Much more likely, a gang style pushing of your friendly party's interests and agendas, under the guise of peacy and justicy rhetorics and nobody needs to be reminded that this is one thing you certainly excel in, unlike achieving, real practical results. An obviously false statement, but I don't really care to give you "successes" anymore, you probably got enough for the rest of this discussion and more. What I do want is a real result, measurable and factual progress on all agendas of peace, not only those of your choice and not accomplished failures guised as a "success" via sophisticated and biased system of specially created criteria. If 70% increase in settlements is OK by your process (and much higher in some areas), then should it also accept a similar increase is militant violence as progress and success? No? Why not? Because you want "progress" and "result' have different meanings for each side, right? Your buddy should be able to continue to do what they do without being unnecessarily obstructed by any censoring on your part, while their opponent must show perfect and complete compliance to even get noticed. That's our great spirit of fairness and justice, a certain path to lasting peace. And another demonstratably false statement, but I assume that anybody writing to this board is capable of reading and understanding what they read. No Dobbin, no. You forgot to explain, why "derailments" by one side cause your serious concern, and real, practical acts, while those from the other, which btw also happened to be your friendly, barely ever get noticed. So you've got to try again, sorry. Either admit that your position has very little to do with genuine peace mediation, as you claimed it to be, and you simply and obviously want to prop your friendly party in whatever way possible. Or, you have to show some act to prove that you mean what you're saying. And the record being as it is, we simply have to assume that it's the former, i.e. your position has nothing to do with genuine, honest mediation for peace. There's simply no factual records to support it, and words, they are just that, words. You seem to simply love to speak, think and believe for me, but here's what I and everybody here knows, because it's a proven fact: Canada had no problem placing sanctions on one side for its violations of the peace agenda, so what would be so terribly wrong with applying the same principle to the other side? Finding anything is certainly one of your democratic rights.