myata

No, it doesn't have to be absolutely 100% purely perfect to be tried. We can still try some more impartiality than we have shown till now. I mean to even start noticing gross transgressions against peace agenda by all parties would be a world of a change from what we have now, would it? No I don't refuse it, and I said it before so you get a <"success!"> misinterpretation of opponent. But I also said that the "focus" on the whole situation has to be maintained also, so that it wouldn't deteriorate the moment it moves on and you get, you know what, a "success". You understand, Dobbin, it's one (local progress) and the other (whole situation under control), and not OR. As we've seen already you want your home reno to show overall progress also, not just one little tile at a time, with deterioration and destruction everywhere else, so it's quite hard to understand why your way of seeing things changes so drastically when you move to things international? OK, so the question is still ignored and you get a success, as promised: <"success!"> ignoring an argument by opponent that was clearly stated And stopping creeping annexation of land also? No, it didn't happen in Northern Irealand, so you never "learned" it, and for that reason should be excused for simply not seeing it, obvious as it is and glaring straight into your eyes. Good that we have it for the record. That's the second time you refused to answer the question and you get a well deserved <"success!"> ignoring an argument by opponent that was clearly stated Let's try again: Hamas has received our serious sanctions for all its transgressions, has Israel gotten any for their violations of the settlements agenda? Why not? OK, we seem to be getting closer to the truth here. And you, do you happen to support that strategy of theirs? At issue is not what somebody does, but how you evaluate it and what do you do about it. This is a clear question so answer it clearly and in good faith to avoid a "success". That is factually untrue. There was a quite prolonged period of relative calm during Oslo peace accord. Of course, anybody with a genuine committment to peace would understand that due to difficult nature of the conflict, it'd be illogical to expect factions violence to cease at once, and that has to be endured for the sake of the greater peace (as it was in our showcase Northern Ireland) - unless of course taken as sought for excuse to get on with the own dirty affairs. But in any case, that period of relative calm and "peace negotiations" saw yet another massive expansion of illegal settlements. So Dobbin the same question continues to haunt your strategy: when are you going to start noticing gross violations of the peace agenda by your friendly party, and start doing anything real and practical about it? Of course it will be. From our own point of view. That's all we have, in the absence of holy knowledge, god given and whatever else one could happen to believe in. Declaring our own principles of resolution of the conflict, just and fair as we see them, and applying them in a principled and impartial manner, is way better than weasiling around trying to not see the obvious, excuse inexcusable, and trumpet utter and accomplished failures as "successes". OK, that's not really an argument of any kind, and therefore a multiple <"success!"> unsubstantiated statement or substantiating statement with imaginary evidence <"success!"> irrelevant digression The question has been Dobbin, why only one side deserves and gets real santions for its transgressions, while the other one - a gentle tap on the shoulder. You already got a couple of successes on it, and it's still open wide for your comments. And so, keep trying. And now, as you promised to us all an explaination of why honest mediation, principled and impartial approach to assisting in settlement of conflicts is so terribly wrond, I'm still waiting, patiently for your response. But it (my patience) won't last forever and next time you'll get a success for ignoring a direct question.

I'll have no choice but to start handing successes again, unless you show some ability to substantiate your statements with either factual evidence, or logical argument, or both. How about continuos, ongoing never ending creeping annexation? Is it not also a kind of violence? Is it not also a kind of "escalation"? Why are you so stubbornly refuse to even see it? During these times there were calmer periods and periods of increased violence; but what was always there, non stop, from day one and ongoing till this very day (see the recent references, posted even by yourself) is the creeping expansion of settlements. So here's some direct direct questions, try to answer them without hitting successes: 1. Do you consider the expansion of settlements as a serious obstacle to peace that has to be dealt with? 2. Why your process, plan, strategy, etc, never brought the expansion of settlements in ALL occupied territories into the focus of its action plan, and has persistently failed to do anything (in real, practical terms) to influence the side perpetrating it to stop that practice? Note that even at this time, following yet another massive expansion, there isn't even a talk of applying some real, practical measures, if the practice does not stop. Why is it, Dobbin? And how is it "conductive" to eventual peace? Or maybe if not peace (in common understanding of it), when what would it be "conductive" to? Again, you simply refuse to see the reality. Every time there's been a peace "process", Isreael took it as a chance to build up its settlements. Every time it lead to escalation of hostilities and breakdown of the process (which was of cause fatally flawed by failing - deliberately? to define clear and exact deescalation priorities, and enforce them in a consistent and impartial manner regardless of which party happened to be at fault). Your persistent desire to look away from that nasty problem only shows quite clearly that your approach to peace is at best deeply flawed, and in the worst option, simply has nothing to do with peace, but rather, supporting one party in the conflict at all cost. And the goal of Israeli government that's been evident in its act is a consistent and massive build up of settlements. We all know what happened to Hamas, but what about Israel? Why such different approaches to gross and massive violations of peace agenda by both parties? BTW you still haven't answered this direct and clear question, and unless you do, there will be a nice success waiting for you next time around. You're talking about talk, I understand it's lot more interesting, but I want to focus on the result, actual situation on the ground. And the result so far has been that one of the critical peace agendas has been consistently and massively violated all the while your beatiful strategy has been in place, and it did not do anything about it, and even barely bothered to notice. Does it look like an honest, genuine effort for peace? Not to me, no. So is anything going to change there, I mean in our own approaches, it's great about the "leaders", but shouldn't we focus on our own act first? That's quite general statement, Dobbin, we'll address a little later, but here's a very specific, concrete question: everybody knows what practical santions were handed to Hamaz for it's violation of agreements, but exactly which real and practical measures were applied to Israel for its blatant, persistent and massive violations of the settlement agenda? It appears that after all, you'd be OK with "unilateral sanctions", as long as they only "focus" on one side. Would that understanding of your position, be, by chance, a correct summary of it? This tells us that your approach is certainly unable to take the "impartial position", thanks for admitting it, but you still have to prove that such position cannot and shouldn't be taken in principle. Start now, I'm all ears. So, an honest, impartial, principle based position in a conflict is impossible because...?

OK, I'll ignore for now the proud (yet still factually untrue) implication that out of a multitude of processes that's been tried (has the impartial one been tried, for example?) that would be the one to show results (have they been tried, Dobbin? In real, practical sense? The short answer is, No). Indeed, peace agreements were a laudable achievements. Yet, when we discussed the agendas of deescalation, the top three priorities were ... that you BTW agreed to (I can still dig out the quote). Recognitions, official ceremonies, and so on, positive and laudable as they are simply were not on top of the real deescalation agenda. And on the main priorities? Expansion of settlements remains the only agenda that sees continous, ongoing deterioration, and it is also the one your process did nothing about, and isn't going to, am I correct, meaning of course in real, practical terms? We've already established documented, factual meaning of that "success". So indeed, this a <"success!"> repeating argument that has been already adressed I'm glad that they are talking, that being far from a real result in itself. I'm only wondering if they could have started earlier, and maybe had a real incentive to achieve actual results sooner (than some 400 years, as in our earlier estimate), if other processes could also have been tried (again, as your creative formula seems to imply, but no it isn't true, is it?)

OK, Dobbin, you win .... (of course, only in the same sense of the word as your previoulsy achieved and duly noted multiple "successes").

You're absolutely free to think what you want, Dobbin, but they are all documented right here, in this very thread.

Wow, it'd certainly take a real mensch to have guts to make this kind of statements after all the numerous factual problems, mistakes, misquotes, misunderstandings and such, which fortunately were all noted and clearly marked and are for everybody to see right here in this very thread. But I guess that indeed there's little left in that bag of tricks other than to throw up mud and hope that somebody won't notice and would get confused. That's of course, other than to begin admitting facts and disputing in good faith, but that must still be a way off, judging by your unwavering persistence.

Refusing to play by imposed rules does not necessarily have to be apathy. I propose to make it a statement.

That's what you think and as we have established factually, what you're thinking doesn't necessarily relate to reality. In any case, if we're done discussing my persona, I have matters to attend to, and I don't think you'd be needing me here for a while anyways, that is, till you come up with arguments or comments of substance directly related to the topic being discussed.

My "anonimous nature" has something to do with massive expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied Palestine territories? Keep up "successful" work, Dobbin!

OK, nothing more directly on the subject is forthcoming? Then you won't be needing my participation here anymore. So long, till there's something of substance to discuss.

It certainly is. Yet only in that range of popular support would a party receive a meaningful representation in the current system. A party or movement with perhaps 10-15% of active voter's support, a significant proportion of active population, would have no meaningful representation (maybe a score of representative, if any at all). This is unfair and has to be changed. And most of the developed world already made it. We'll get there too, sooner or later. The quickest and most efficient way to get there is not by convincing the two main parties which have most to lose in the reform to do it, but simply to stop playing their game. This is an active, conscious position that has nothing to do with "apathy". I suggest everybody who's interested to see the change to come sooner, to consider it, and pass the idea along.

Using your imagination and changing the subject? More "successes"!

Looks like another bunch of successes. And I already stopped counting. And I don't really care to.

OK I have no comments. I simply do not wish to pollute this topic with the same style of disputing we've seen previously. Amen.

I commented awhile back that the present system does not allow any new party to raise up to prominence because it sends them off as marginal and irrelevant from the start. Barring some extraordinary event, it is illogical to expect any movement to come with 30-40% voter support off the start, and any emerging movement would receive either completely irrelevant representation, or no representaiton at all under the current system.

Because somebody here cannot muster logical arguments to defend their position here, they have no choice but to resort to personal insinuations, perhaps in the desperate hope that it'd somehow, anyhow prop up their position. I don't mind discussing your disputing tactics at length, but I would strongly suggest to not pollute multiple topics with that and therefore either refrain from these pointless comments, or at least keep them limited to the thread in which they were originally brought up.

Strange how it goes in your logic, isn't it? You call somebody a name, and then accuse them of "attacking and insults"? Although we've already established that logic and rationality has not been your forte in this discussion (what is?) I'm sorry Dobbin, but this has to be a <"success!"> failing to substantite request for private information with fact or logical argument And this too: <"success!"> misrepresenting opponent and failing to stay on topic under discussion Because the absence of such change (and on the contrary, presence of very meaningful deterioration) has been factually demonstrated, I cannot but to call it yet another great: <"success!">using unsubstantiated statements as facts.

Really? And where would the "nuancing" go, once you get your rep elected in the House? I'll tell you. In the basket, under the table of the party whip. She/he would do as the leader/exec committee/whip commands, or be expelled from the caucus. There you go, for all the nuancing. The party politics is here to stay. The only question is, would there be exactly two preappointed for us parties, or any party of our choosing? The most efficient way to achieve the change is to stop playing the game. This is not a "disengagement", Dobbin, but another concious peaceful and democratic strategy, except is falls outside the lines you (i.e. your mainstream parties) set for us 150 years back, if so, sorry, but can't be helped.

<"success!"> attacking the opponent rather than arguments If so, you forgot to confirm it with a reference. Again. Because this is what you own reference has to say on the matter: There's also a picture of a labourer working on construction of new housing units in settlements. The "unsourced" part only relates to the purported US "approval" of this new massive expansion (0.5% of the entire settlement population in this one event), with strong suggestions that such approval may indeed be in the works. Just as was explained to you earlier, but again, you simply refuse to take in facts. So this has to be an astounding multiple <"success!"> misrepresentation of referenced material. and <"success!"> using unsubstantiated statements as facts and ignoring arguments of the opponent. And you know what, Dobbin? You did it! You have achieved the perfect 100% absolute score! I.e. none of the statements in this last post could be confirmed factually, or supported by logical arguments. Congratulations, keep on great job of promoting peace in the world, but hopefully (in my private view, of course) with somewhat opposite results to your glorious string of "successes" so far. That would somehow improve, or alter your position in this discussion?

I only want a real, meaningful choice, not that junior kindergarten thing "Oh, Johnny, you can have Iggy or you can have Harper, but I'm afraid not much else" we have now. And only our action, concious decision to not participate in the circus that will eventually bring about the change. Indeed, I already commented on the other possibility.

I'm only talking about the time when all voters would have meaningful choice according to their actual preferences, unlike Iggy or Harper or nothing that we have now. If we only stop playing the game, and ignore it till voter participations drops below any meaningful levels, the elite would have no choice but to act. Till then we can as well all go to sleep, one of the two would win, and things will always be the same, because they're becoming like identical clones of each other (looks and rhetorics aside).

It'll take time but people will come to realize that we can't live by the rules made 200 years back, when people used horses and carts, and there was no telephone, forever. If we won't die out of old age marasmus before then, that is.

OK, I'll explain that paradox for your. They haven't been "approved" by SD (from which could one conclude that there're some that were? anyways), but their construction is indeed underway, according to this very clear and inambiguous in any way statement from your own link: "Israel says the building of the 2,500 units is already under way and cannot be lawfully stopped." So this: Dobbin, is a <"success!"> misrepresentation of referenced material. Your own posted report says that construction is under way, so it must be yet another <"success!"> unsing unconfermed references as facts or misrepresenting referenced material. I'll take it as a complement any time as long as my reasoning is sound, and it obviously is, if you have to resort to this kind of "arguments". And this is also a clear <"success!"> ignoring an argument by the opponent that has been clearly stated. You're making real strides here, and getting tantalizingly close to the perfect score. I already said that I can't care less about what you think about my persona, but I'm also quite doubtful you'd exhibitt the same methods of disputing were it held in public.

Of course it is, Dobbin. It is substantiated by the original reference, and this direct quote from your own reference: "Israel says the building of the 2,500 units is already under way and cannot be lawfully stopped" Thank you for confirming my earlier assertion that the construction of this new expansion of illegal settlements, which you did not want to notice, is under way. Apparently (of course you didn't noticed, did you?) Israel only needs US "approval" in the matters of its massive financial and military aid. Expansion of settlements is going equally well with or without such "approval". That is what we were talking about, and it's now a fact confirmed yet again. <"success!"> repetion of alraeady addressed argument. <"success!"> misreading, ignoring opponent's argument or misrepresentation of opponent. I said that showing real progress in halting the constrution of settlements would be a genuine progress toward deescalation of conflict and eventual peace. No such progress has been seen so far, and your approach makes it highly doubtful it'll happen anytime soon, because it ignores gross and persistent violations of this critical agenda. BTW next time you'll get a "success!" for thinking for the opponent, rather than responding to their clearly stated arguments. <"success!> repeating argument that has been already addressed What you said is on record here, and that you think about my behaviour or anything else related to my persona for that matter, does not interest, nor concern me one tiny, little, miniscule and insignificant bit.

No reference to "expected announcement" appears in your posted links, and no such announcement has been made either, so we'll have to treat this statement: as still unsubstantied, despite all your definite promises otherwise. And then, as we already established, the only context full, i.e. permanent and unconditional "freeze" is referenced in your link, is negative. Yet this statement: make it sound is if it (the freeze) is a done deal. That is a misleading to say the least, use of references. And you know what, Dobbin? I'm not going to waste my time solving your creative charades anymore. Somehow I think that you're proliferate enough to keep a whole office busy with that pointless activity and then. But you can also be absolutely certain that I'm not going to give in to your intellectual bullying. So here's what we'll do. From now on, any "creative" tactics, such as, but not limited to: not admitting confirmed and referenced fact; not responding to clear and direct questions; misinterpretation of opponent and/or referenced material; repeating already addressed arguments as if nothing has happend, and so on; i.e. any tactics used to avoid disputing in good faith, will cause this small tag: <"success!"> to appear, with a brief description of reason but no serious comment as those have to be earned with a genuine, meaningful argument. So here Dobbin, is your first: <"success!"> unconfirmed statement and misrepresentation of referenced material If you're implying that the agreement implicitly or explicitly agreed to a massive deterioration of situation outside of miniscule area of "focus", then it's simply a bad agreement, and its results would lead not toward the peace, but away from it, just what we see in reality. Congratulations on claiming success with the result that any sane individual would consider an accomplished failure (yourself included, e.g. in that reno project, am I wrong?). I'll restate it one last time, next time you'll get a "success" for pointless repetion. Settlements agenda is one of the three main areas of deescalation, and also the only one of them that has seen consistent, ongoing deterioration of situation. It's very telling that in all real and practical terms, it simply does not exist in your "peaceful" strategy, I mean it never going to do anything real and practical about continous and ongoing expansion of settlements, as it never did, correct? <"success!"> misrepresentation of opponent And you close your eyes to not see the entire situation, where there's massive deterioration. By moving one step forward and 4 / 25 and so on, back, do you move to the goal or away from it? Of course if your genuine goal is the same as what you claim it to be. Northern Ireland situation isn't even remotely similar to Middle East, for once there's no occupation and creeping annexation by one state of another. So, Dobbin, it has to be another <"success!"> pointless distraction from issue at hand This is a direct quote from the reference: "US officials nevertheless agreed to allow the construction of an additional 2,500 housing unites spanning across 700 buildings in a number of settlement outposts" So it must be yet another <"success!"> misrepresenation of referenced material. (Of course the original reference wasn't mine, can't take credit for somebody else's good work). Four "successes" in one post, not bad at all, but I'm sure you can do better still. Yet it was you Dobbin, who said it, why going shy all of a sudden? And now that ridiculous comment about my character. As said, once started on the path of absurdity, there's no telling where one'd end up.