myata

And again, we'll have to take your word. I don't and I read the whole article end to end, of course I could still have missed something, and if so, you'll certainly oblige me by posting the exact, unaltered in any way, quote from your prevously referenced link? Sounds like a broken tape recorder. That's what I find insulting to common sense and intelligence. While your advocated approach looked the other way all the while massive expansion of settlements was happening over the last two decades. "Israeli soldier" would certainly explain that phonomenon. Call when there's actual real result. The first ever reduction of illegal settlements in ALL occupied territories. Also if you have any news about what you (i.e your party and leader) would do in real, practical terms, if it won't happen. As it never did before, talks or no talks. Till then, I do not believe you have anything of real substance to contribute to this discussion, am I wrong? You mean those 2,500 approved new houses aren't being constructed as we speak? If you have some factual confirmation to that, I'll be genuinly glad. If not though, should we assume that this is yet another of multiple facts that you want to dismiss because they wouldn't fit into your view of reality? This sounds really scary, could that be a threat of physical insult? Help!!!!

I indeed missed that because it simply does not exist in your reference (other than in above mentioned hypothetical context). I'm not discusssing your talking I already stated that very clearly. I see, you want to deviate into talking about talking. We could do that once we're done with the evaluation of our progress so far. So do you admit that your advocated strategy has failed to bring a halt to expansion of illegal settlements, yes or no? With your weasiling around it's becoming increasingly doubtful that real, practical reduction of illegal settlements is anywhere serious on your real agenda, and therefore, genuine progress toward peace. How have you determined, what is "foremost"? Why transgressions by one side are on your "foremost" agenda, while obvoius, massive, continuous, and ongoing, by the other, barely even recognized? Is that a sign of balance and impariality of your approach? When explicitly and repeatedly asked for it.. and then losing something (and bringing something of your own) on the way. I'm so sorry, but I really haven't imagined that you'd take friendly assistence with that truly complicated subject as an insult.

Your link says nothing about "23 settlements" but it does refer to to "23 illegal outposts". So do you genuinely not understand the difference or ....???? BTW and also from your reference the only quote mentioning freeze on "settlements" would be this: Note the highlights in case it could be missed otherwise as it happens sometimes (a lot). So shall we assume that your earlier interpertations of complete and comprehensive freeze on ALL settlements would be what? another honest confusion? (oops - I did it again )); or what? a thing of mind, i.e fantasy? I wouldn't ever think it's a deliberate misleading of course. What is, Dobbin, exactly? Theoretical temporary freeze following another massive expansion? Or "complexities"? I'm afraid you haven't provided much else to hop around singing about. Thank you for your concern, can I return the favour by advising you to think about your strange hopscotch vision of reality, not admitting obvious facts, using misleading and confusing terminology, unreferenced, unexisting or known only to yourself notions, distracting on irrelevant tangents to avoid answering direct questions, misinterpreting your opponent, etc, all in all, that appears more and more likely, not disputing in good faith? Of course continuation of such discussion becomes more and more pointless from the perspective of finding solutions, but I'll have to continue to expose your tactics for as long as necessary, just so that at least here we wouldn't have to take them for granted and fall into our usual complacency.

Dobbin, the only facts actually posted in this thread, are referenced approval of 2,500 new settler homes and a description of a removed "illegal" outpost. I'm not discussing your talk anymore, I know that you can produce it in volumes and for all its worth it may not have any serious relation to reality. I'm sorry, but do we have to take your word on it? Everybody else substantiates their claims with references. In any case, briefings and discussions are not yet actual physical results. Every time there was an activation of negotiation process in the past, Israels found a reason, cause, loophole to build up settlements just as your praised policy looked the other way. When and if it's provably different this time around, I'll be very excited to hear the news. It was hardly an offensive term Dobbin, besides you yourself asked for help, ostensibly being unable to put together two numbers (5 and 23) in a grade 3 (or is it 1?) calculation, so I simply couldn't refuse, as it'd have been grossly impolite. I do appologise for using inappropriate term (as should be obvious to everybody by now) and promise to never call you "genius" ever again.

Numbers were posted for everybody (but apparently not yourself) to see. According to TV New Zealand, dismantled outpost (not "settlement", Dobbin - even in Israel's government own terminology - so why use these confusing and misleading words? to promote agenda of peace? genuine misunderstanding? having quite above normal measure of those lately, i.e. in this particular thread;; or something else? i.e. a pattern.. you know which one and I'm not gonna repeat myself anymore, it's been discussed at length): Outpost = seven makeshift cabins and five (5) families. 23 outposts = 5 x 23 = 115 give or take a few. Each of the 2,500 approved homes would house a settler family. Do the Grade 3 math, our peaceful genius.

These lands are occupied by Israel and settlement of them is illegal and prohibited by international law. No examples are necessary, only living up by the same laws we claim to support and uphold, but in reality condone and look the other way while they are being massively violated. However if you believe that protecting other people property, including land, is flawed, you're free to apply that original concept to yourself, i.e if somebody maybe of another ethnicity gets hold of your propertly by any way, you certainly shouldn't object to that, and least of all try to return it, because it would violate their ", i.e. the current holder's of you earlier property, rights. Such noble act would certainly qualify as "applying same standard", so when would we be able to see it?

No, not at all, if those settlers got there through force in the first place and therefore are occupying the place illegally. There's nothing wrong with removing illegal settlers whatever ethnicity they happen to belong to. (Not to mention that of course somebody so interested in "same standards" could have noticed the "forceful removal" of original population to make way to those settlements. But not to worry, selective "seeing" seems to be our perfect answer to any otherwise unanswerable moral inconsistencies and paradoxes).

Thank you. And now, with 2,500 new settlers families up, and about a hundred (100) down, btw both in the area of your present focus, are we still talking about great "progress"? Of the same kind we've seen in Gaza? Of the same kind we see always? OK, I think it's about time to round things up. It should be pretty obvious to everybody by now that your peaceful terminology, from all practical perspectives, is at best meaningless and irresponsible talk, and at worst, a smokescreen and deception. You aren't interested in seeing real, actual progress in reduction of illegal settlements from ALL occupied territories. That encourages creeping annexation of occupied land at even accelerating pace (Gaza "success": 4 new settlers for each one removed, this latest one: 25 (twenty five)). Thus compromising, to a fatal and completely pointless extent one of the three main agendas of deescalation. Your advocated strategy is delaying and compromising genuine movement toward peace by ignoring and refusing to do anything real and practical about never ending expansion of illegal settlements. That is the only logical conclusion based on facts, please take time to understand it, and call back when you have a real practical result, ie. the first ever actual reduction in illegal settlements in ALL occupied territories.

Hear, Dobbin is making clarification here. Not all settlements are illegal now, only the "new" ones. And because Dobbin is such a great talker, we can expect that the exact meaning of "new" would be open to negotiation, correct, Dobbin? Our great strategy of peace. Just look the right way, and the progress will find itself. Twenty five hundred (2500) plus, one (23 x 5 = 115) down. Need help with basic arithmetics, Dobbin?

Twenty five hundred plus, one minus. One step forward, twenty five back. "Dwarfing success" New record of irrationality, Dobbin. New (out of many, many before) confirmation that with your tacit approval build up of illegal settlements will continue anabated. New obstacle in the way of peace process. Louded and admired by our great champion of peace.

Not sure about announcements, but your logic certainly dwarfs all previous records of irrationality set so far in this thread. Addition of 25 hundred of settlers families and removal of 1 (one), is also a great success in your view? Whata kind of distorted, tunnel view would that be? Unless of course you're now supporting Israeli view that unlike "outposts", the rest of settlements in the occupied territories are somehow, "legal", are you, Dobbin? Now of course, it should be crystally obvious to everybody that real, practical removal of illegal settlements is nowhere on your real, genuine agenda. (according to this link: NZ TV: Israeli outpost removed, an "illegal" outpost is a few families). "Illegal" means not approved by Israeli government, as all settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under international law.

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

Indeed stability and prosperity were good for this country, and as a result created a large middle class which is now the main electorate base for both parties of the duopoly. Because the parties are now vying for pretty much the same electorate, they are mimicking each other on one hand, and avoiding serious decisions on the other. As a result parties are becoming harger and harder to distinguish between. This eventually would lead to voter apathy, and the unavoidable reform of the system, so that the entire political spectrum, not only middle majority can have a meaningful representation.

And the nature of your focus is such that while it's focussing in one place, illegal settlements are popping up everywhere else. Hopscotch vision, Dobbin. In the meanwhile, factual is massive increase of settlements in over 98% of problem area (by population), and overall. And if we're truly and genuinly interested in a real resolution of this conflict, we would be focusing on practical agendas of deescalation of hostilities, rather than pressing our view of history. Very obviously to anybody who's read about hte history of the conflict that there were deep problems with the way Isreal has come into existence after the end of WWII. These problems will be healed by continuous and ongoing slow build up of trust, not by some act or proclamation. And of course the key in building up the trust is a position based on principles of peace, justice and equality, something that your advocated approach simply does not have . Of course, and with the results achieved so far, only God knows (maybe you too, with your crystal ball) which new heights the illegal settlements would reach once your focus moves (last time they were up 70%. Any bets, Dobbin?) That is commendable, but we're talking about impartial and just position which obviously does not exist. Hamas is being condemned and ostracised, while there's been no practical measures at all and whatsoever to stop the explansion of illegall settlements by Israel. And again, it's a fact So still can't name the part of the statement that is factually incorrect? That makes it true, Dobbin, and you know why, because it's a fact. Indeed, we'd only have to conclude that your genuine goal is to show off progress in one tiny perfect square of the problem and see nothing else (like those Bantustans in South Africa - all was nice and perfect there too?). Because in the vast majority of problem area, and overall, there's been a massive deterioration of condition, as anybody capable of taking in exactly two numbers (condition on 1993 - condition on 2006) would be able to tell you. That is simply and factually not true as anybody who bothered to read and able to comprehend what they read would be able to tell. But of course you're free to talk to yourself. I understand perfectly well that your focus is moving, but in itself it isn't a result just yet, and with massive deterioration in over 98% of problem area and overall, I don't honestly know who would call that that a success. How's that reno project going btw, ready to put your new criteria of success into practice, there? When it would show in your act, not only words, and it does not. Your advocated approached allowed massive increae in illegal settlements which is a major stopping block for peace. By refusting to do anything real, and practical about it you tacitly approve that illegal policy, and therefore, in fact and in actuality, are delaying and compromising the genuine agenda of peace. That is very simplistic way to describe my position. Try rereading it again, it's all there for you, and we aren't in SK where I'd need to read you aloud. We know you can talk, Dobbin, but what was meant is the real practical result, and it's the result that's missing miserably from your advocated approach, probably because it's failing to show impartiality and principles, and therefore cannot be trusted by all sides. We can start with real, practical actions. Indeed aimed at whatever side isn't following the agendas of deescalation. And if that simple strategy isn't supported, it'd only mean that balanced and principled approach, despite all words, simply isn't there, and therefore the real results wouldn't be likely to follow, unless deceptions, talk and megatalk, more smokescreens, but no factual, real improvement of situation on the ground. That's what we had so far, and there's obvious explanation for that, but again, as all logic and common sense, it could only benefit those who can hear it. But your act is. Word, or act, choose one, as they are so obviously far apart. I sure will

I mean, is / can our lopsided approach be justified by somebody else doing another wrong thing? Would two wrongs make one good? Those ones of "justice, peace, equality" and such. Those we like to trumpet back home and conveniently leave behind crossing the boarder.

This system is rigged against any other party coming even remotely close to claiming the prize. Barring a miracle, smaller parties would never be able to get off the ground and will be written off by majority of voters as irrelevant. It's really Iggy or Harper or do not vote at all (the most sensible of all other options).

So are we doing some kind of a balancing act here? As opposed to impartial and honest approach based on our cherished prinicples (back home)?

The interesting part is that while violence by Palestinian factions receives well deserved condemnation, virtually nothing, in the way of real, practical measures, is being done about Israel's creeping expansion of settlements, that's been as steady and ongoing, as rocket attacks. Until somebody somewhere and somehow comes to notice that strange and unexplainable, though obvious and glaring disbalance in our purpotedly peaceful approache, I'm afraid we cannot raise high hopes for a lasting peace, no matter official statements of any kind and from whoever. Any honest agreement takes two sides and free will, but it appears that as ever, we're bent on imposing our will on others.

The "focus" IS NOT a factual result, but massive increase in illegal settlements in over 98% of the problem area, is. You can say whatever you want to say, but it's a fact that while Hamas has faced real, practical and material sanctions for its various transgressions, Israel has yet to face any for its massive build up of illegal settlements. That the fact, Dobbin, and as we hopefully established by now, talking (yours or anybodys) does not change facts. No it's not an example of a "progress" in any rational sense of the word because it was accompanied by massive buildup of illegal settlements everywhere else. Your special, selective hopscotch vision is very interesting, but again, it cannot and won't change the reality that is that while friendly encouragement policy has been in place, settlements grew by 70%. And your sanctions are already hurting most vulnerable in Gaza, where humanitarian situation is approaching disaster, while doing nothing at all and whatsoever to stop the creeping annexation that is contributing to continuation of conflict. There's your friendly involvement support, and unlike my balanced one, that has yet to be tried, yours is already failing miserably as demonstrated by facts. That general accusatory statement must be a substitute for a substantiated argument, did I understand you correctly? So, indeed you cannot name the part of the statement that is not factually correct. Thank you for admitting it, finally. And massive increase of illegal settlements everywhere else, and overall. The balanced approach, as any rational, sane project would be based on specific, measurable objectives, one of which (note for the record: not the only one; others would relate to cessation of hostilities, both large military and small insurgency, and human rights progress) would be reduction targets for the illegal settelements in ALL occupied territories. Objective achieved, reward, failed, sanction. That's the only practical and rational way to achieve your goals, if you actually and genuinely want them to be achieved. It's very had to tell what may or will seem to you, but I already stated many times that I advocate balanced and principled approach that would monitor progress in all agendas of resolution, and by all parties, equally. But we were talking about the result, actual reduction of settlements in ALL occupied territories. I understand, it must be quite challenging to stay on subject in your situation. Talking you yourself? That is why real, genuine peace process should focus (not in your hopscotch vision way, but as a clear measurable and monitored goal) on a small number of deescalation agendas, like: 1) cessation of hostilities (both large scale military and small scale insurgency); 2) halt and removal of illegal settlements from ALL occupied territories; 3) progress in human rights; When / if people see real movement on each and all of the above they would be much more likely to trust and support peace process eventually forcing their leaders to negotiate. Needless to say that it's very unlikely to happen in the context of your one sided "friendly involvement", that tacitly encourages (by refusing to react in any meaningful way) illegal actions like creeping annexation, and thus delaying and compromising the genuine movement toward peace in the region. And nobody is suggesting it either. You're talking to yourself, wake up, Dobbin! I'll study NDP policy on Middle East and will report here as soon as I have something to contribute. And if I won't? Will you give it to me, then? Looks like one sided strategies is one of your real strengths in this life (I wouldn't be so sure about actually achieving results).

Nevertheless, that's what you get, as as the real, factual result of your (in)action. Words do not always relate to the reality as we already know all too well by now. You can say that, and it would be obviously and factually wrong. First of all, I do not have, nor call for a "singular focus" on any one side, but (how many times did I repeat it already? but this would be the last one) for impartial and principled approach. Which your position is so obviously lacking, because otherwise you would have been able to cite examples of real practical responses to transgressions and violations by your friendly side, while of course and obviously, such responses are common toward their opponent, starting from diplomatic isolation and .. you know it, being a (self proclamed) expert in the subject. Yet you have no examples where one sided support resulted in a progress, and in the case being discussed it's a fact that it's failing miserably: - 20 years; - progress in less than 2% of problem area; - massive deterioration everywhere else The question is not of applying sanctions to hurt vulnerable, but to show impartial and balanced approach, while your strategy only encourages continuation of creeping annexation and therefore, continuation of conflict. Then you'd be able to name the part of the statement that is not factually correct. Which one it is, Dobbin? Your staunch refusal to recognise massive expansion of settlements while your strategy has been in place? Or the absence of any real action to stop the explansion? Remeber we have numerous cases of real, practical acts directed at the other side so in that context, even refusing to see the grossest violations by your friendly can only be interpreted in ne way, your being OK with it, i.e. tacit approval. Yet I called for something completely different (see numerous instances earlier in this topic). Your seeing is wrong, and you should address this issue with your vision before you can make any logical argument here. It doesn't "upset" me more than other areas, and I stated many times that progress should be made in all areas, but I'm intrigued by obvious and persistent lack of any real response to gross violations of principles of resolution by one side, and I'd like to understand how this strange pattern relate to the proclaimed objective of peace. Which I do not believe has much chance of success if problems are seen only on one side of the conflict and completely ignored (in all practical sense) on the other side. What my plan would or wouldn't have done is now a "history"? How's one supposed to understand that? What you've already seen the results of all possible combinations and possibilites? That would make you divine, Dobbin, I'm really impressed! No, not so fast, remember, you still have to show that, ie. result, correct? The first, real and actual reduction in the illegal settlements in ALL occupied territories. Could it be because Hamas is already suffering serious and real sanctions, while the other side is enjoying unwavering and unconditional (in all practical sense) support? Both sides committed gross violations of peace principles, but only one is seeing any practical actions, so I'm curious how does that relate to the (genuine) objective of achieving peace? To any impartial observer such a peaceful state of affairs would appear quite strange, and hardly conductive to, you know what. I've said all I had about your stubborn use of disengagement and I'll leave it to you now to say as many times as you want with no comment at all. It's obviously became artefact of your mind and I wouldn't have any involvement in disucssing your private matters. Now reading minds with your crystall ball, Dobbin? How's that million $$ project going?

Concervative or Liberal minority wouldn't make one grain of a difference for the country, the only one being who gets to move to the Sussex house. I wouldn't even bother to vote because it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell apart the main two parties, and voting anywhere else, in most cases is as good as spoiling your ballot. Maybe that would be the only meaningful choice in this situation?

In the absence of meaningful response on the subject of the matter I can only conclude that you indeed implicitily admit (by failing to refute) tacit encouragement of creeping annexation. You've seen it coincidental with "change of behaviour" in South Africa and Iraq, that may not have been a simple coincidence. And of course you haven't seen it's being effective in the Middle East for the obvious reason that Western powers led by US have adopted the friendly encouragement approach, the one that so far has been a miserable failure (at least in attaining its proclaimed goals of removing illegal settlements and approaching resolution of the conflict) and the one that you, Dobbin advocate. That plan has definitely and demonstratably been a failure. You can insist on sticking with the failing policy if you're finding that smart and rational, or, if you're really and genuinely interested in peace, you may try to change it. You claimed interest in resolving the conflict (one could argue whether or not a bystander who doesn't really care, can be excused for to not reacting in that situation, but it's not you, not by your own claim), and yet your refuse to even admit, let alone react in any real way to a gross violation of one of the main principles of settlement. In any logical view, it is tacit approval and even encouragement of that policy. Look I already commented on your use of that "disengagement" ruse at least twice, and your continuing it still only shows either serious problem with comprehension of plain simple English text, or desperation (or both). I don't know what you're talking about, but we were discussing your, Dobbin, reaction to various setbacks. So, again, why would Israeli "setbacks" cause much less concern with your peaceful policy, than those committed by the other side? Please stay on subject. Again, reading your crystal ball Dobbin? Why won't you try with a million dollars too? Let us know how it went. I'll support any genuine and real action toward peace, but the friendly hush-hush we've seen so far on the part of some Western powers, and now Canada too, does not strike me like one. If and when you can show real, actual and measurable progress in reality, I'll support it as such. And you're factually wrong here, because I point out the need for security and cessation of small scale attacks on every occasion, but of course, I cannot influence which part of what I write you read, see and comprehend. There should be no such doubts about the "friendly engagement" strategy you advocate, because it's obvious in the fact and in the act, that the transgressions and violations by your friendly side receive no real response at all, unlike those of its opponent. Even if it were so, would it be the first, or even a rare occasion when a crowd of people, or a gang takes it all wrong? Having a crowd, gang around does mean right, that should be quite obvious, no? I'll make sure to study NDP policy though and maybe even discuss it, thanks for the tip, what I'll certainly won't do is to support something I see no honest meaning in.

Why hide behind Canada, you, Dobbin, are giving tacit support to expansion of settlements by first refusing to recognize it exists, secondly refusing to admit that your policy of friendly hush-hush is not leading anywhere, and by denying the need for real, if necessary, strong measures, you're telling those people who are behind the expansion that your "not uncriticity" does not really mean anything real. Thas is tacit encouragement, and it's very obvious that you're advocating Canada to become complicit in it. Now that sounds like a mantra. You should try it with a million dollars instead. I'm sure you'll get it. Always. And resulted in a massive expansion of settlements everywhere else, about which you're advocating doing nothing, i.e. nothing real. Unlike your "focus" that is a thing of your mind, imagination, that is a fact of reality. And your refusing to even see it, and admit it, is a tacit encouragement of creeping annexation, and works contrary to the peace, Dobbin, no matter what you say about it. Oh you already asked them about my approach, or you just happen to "know"? Oh really? Should it read then that you condemn Israeli "setbacks" as clearly and strongly as those of the opposite side, the same Hamas? Is there an example of that we could see, like e.g. threatening sanctions (applied to Hamas), threatening diplomatic isolation (applied to Hamas), declaring somebody bad, very bad (all applied to Hamas), and so on? To me it looks like lightyears and lightyears of difference, but then, you see things differently, don't you? Thanks for reporting. In less than 2% of reality. While miserably failing everywhere else. The new definition of success, a la Dobbin. Try to use it in your next home reno project, you'll have a lot fun from your blonde. OMG are we seeing the light of the day, finally? Does it mean that you're admitting it, even if implicitly? I'm full of joy (of course I never denied that there was movement of settlements from Gaza, it's like a fact). Now Dobbin, from here only one little step remains. Given that its been 20 years, and the settlers of Gaza counted for less than 2% of the total settlers population, couldn't we conclude that the pace of "progress" is somewhat wanting (1% per decade = you know how many years would it take to get to the end of your process?, even if it continued at that pace without builtup of settlements in other areas where our focus isn't happen to be present, and as it has been the case like always, since Day 1?). And therefore the strategy looks like a little tiny winy bit less than a complete, I mean absolutely 100% "success"? Sure, and now the only thing that remains is to show the results. Please call when we see the first actual reduction in illegal settlements in ALL of the occupied territories. With the current track record, I sincerely hope this board still exists by then.

I agree that Canada should have a reasonable view in this matter, as well as all of its international affairs, but I'd like the "reasonability" to be based on some clearly defined set of principles (just like our internal affairs are based on Constitution) rather than that half intuitive, difficult to express and even more difficult to substantiate "natural" affiliation (i.e. in essense, gang mentality).

I voted for the change and I'll also support a reform of representation system so that it can actually reflect the current picture of voter support, not its 150 year old image.