myata

"Constructive engagement", Dobbin (Wikipedia: Constructive Engagement in South Africa). See you're even using similar terminology, and of course, with the same result (encouragement of illegal inacceptable by any civilized standards policies, such as apartheid, or creeping annexation of land).

And massive increase everywhere else. Hopscotch vision = tacit encoragement of creeping annexation = working against peace. Indeed, 70% increase in illegal settlements, and yes, Dobbin with your approach nobody could assure that the same kind of change won't continue, as it did all the while your strategy has been in place. Emotion cannot change the obvious fact that is staring you straight in the face no matter how you wished it wasn't there. And grabbed more land in the process, and with your tacit encouragement, indeed there's high chance that we'll see the same pattern continuing well into the future. And now you're into predicting futures, and somehow I'm not at all surprised that you now have that wonderful ability, along with universal knowledge and whatever else you'd like to claim. I am not turning bling eye on any violations of human rights, security or international law, wherever they take place. Recognition of any state by another state is a different matter as it does not fall into any of these categories. And now it's your turn to admit an accomplished failure of your strategy in dealing with illegal settlements in the occupied territries. You should try some reading up then. Before universal sactions and isolation was applied, many Western countries were employing "constructive dialog", "friendly involvement" and such, not unlike what you support in the Middle East and they even claimed some "results" and "successes" in it, like construction of those reservations, i.e. "Bantustans". History likes to repeat itself especially with those who wouldn't learn. And now you're using this childish ploy of bouncing back the argument, yet it's demonstratably false because unlike you I do admit facts and arguments based on logic and reason, while you wouldn't, and here's the proof: Dobbin, do you admit the fact that while your advocated approach has been in place, there's been massive increase in illegal settlements in the occupied territories overall? Wait, you'll say that when we actually see the first real reduction in settlements overall. Based on your previous track record we only have a few more hundred years to wait.

But we're talking about actual results, Dobbin, not future possibilites. And the results are: - 20 years; - progress in less than 2% of the problem area; - massive deterioration in every other area and overall; By any rational measure, it's an accomplished failure and any rational individual genuinly attempting to achieve positive change would have no choice but to admit it. I'm sorry that you're finding insult in my stating plain, obvious fact, that you adamantly refuse to admit. But I'm left with no choice really, because it is a fact and it cannot be negated by simply looking away and pretending it's not there. OK, I'm starting to understand your creative languge, and it means that you cannot name such a period. Your hopscotch vision is your own problem. I'm afraid we have to conclude that your strategy of "friendly encouragement" indeed encourages creeping annexation, and therefore and in actuality works against peace. That would be the only rational logical explanation. So you're prepared to turn a blind eye on and excuse illegal annexation of land (from the point of view of international law) and in the possible eventuality of squeezing native population out of East Jerusalem, something not unlike ethnic cleansing? Certainly sounds like a "peaceful" strategy and once on that peaceful path, I'd find it hard to predict where you'd end up. For once, I agree that though they happened at the same time, the causal connection has yet to be proven. What we do know for sure though, that the earlier "encouragement, involvement appeasement, etc" strateties did not work, i.e. did not cause any "change of behaviour". That, Dobbin, is a fact. Again you're stating something as a fact but you have to prove it, not in the least but showing that you can have a clear unbiased view of the entirety of the situation. And because we now have a factual confirmation that you're miserably failing at that, not being able to take in clear, obvious facts glaring you straight in the face, the above statement would remain, as many thing that you say, just that, your saying. With no further implication or meaning. You can say many other things (feel free to try) but without some factual confirmation, and/or logical argumentation, they would remain a thing of your imagination, i.e. may have nothing to do with reality. These indeed may be hopeful developments, but we're discussing the actual results of your advocated strategy so far. With massive increase of illegal settlements in vast majority of the occupied territories and overall, with no cessation of large scale military hostilities, with massive violations of human rights in the occupied territories, documented by independent organisations, do you admit that it's been an accomplished failure so far?

If in your view all Palestinians are "terrorists", that's a pretty mudded view. You'll have to clarify the second part of your question, and I suggest to start clarification with reading up on the history of the conflict, then take time to ponder the facts, and then attempt to take a open, balanced look at it, as you obviously cannot now.

No Dobbin, unlike you I won't deny the obvious, progress was indeed achieved in Gaza. But first of all, settlers were not "removed", they were moved somewhere else. Plus, for each settler moved from Gaza, three new ones were added. In 1993, there were 4,800 settlers in Gaza, i.e. less than 2 (two) percent of the total number of 281,800. It took your strategy 20 years, no, not to remove them but to move them to another area, and in the meanwhile add 70% more settlers overall. In what rational mind would such state of affairs qualify as "success"? Now let's calculate how long would it take your strategy to "remove" all of the settlements, that being the ultimate objective, correct, we agree on that? Let's see, less than 2% = 13 years, 1% = 7 years. Can you do the simple math, Dobbin, or shall I help you with that too? (just in case of complications with basic arithmetics, hint: seven hundred (700) years. About 400 years for West Bank only, not counting East Jerusalem). Just another point for rationality of your strategy. So Dobbin, - 20 years; - progress in less than 2% of the problem area; - massive (70%) increase in illegal settlements everywhere else and overall; - 700 years (based on fact, i.e. achieved track record) to complete the plan and no guarantee of success You call it "rational" and "success"? Then indeed, the word must have a different, special meaning for you. It's nothing to do with the conservatives, only that state of mind that stubbornly, persistently refuses to admit plain, obvious facts. Whatever helps in overcoming it, I'd be very glad. Oh yes, "break down", right! Then you could certainly point to a period, withing the last two decades, when it wasn't broken i.e. construction of settlements was actually stopped, halted? Let's hear it, please, a vous: (and if you can't find such a period? should we then have to conclude that the expansion of settlements was going full speed all the while your beatiful strategy was in place, and so we shouldn't really say "break down" but more like, "business as usual"? And your strategy had no problem with that, hence a "successful" result of 70% overall increase? The only question would be, how would it relate to such abstract notion as "peace", because we're talking about creeping annexation, i.e. an aggression in its own right, and your strategy doesn't seem to have much problem with that, correct?). OK, one frank admission at least. So one sunny day one could wake up find nearly all arab population squeezed out from East Jerusalem and that would perfectly fine for your strategy and peaceful assistance. That may explain why in two decades of your helpful strategy, settler population in East Jerusalem has increased 2.5 times, i.e. by 150%. Dobbin, these, again, are your ideas and you can't mix them up, or substitute for reality. The reality is that all these changes happened while sanctions were in place, and vice versa, no changes to apartheid or WMD in Iraq happened before they were put in place. We had friendly involvement or whatever we called it at the time with South Africa and it did not end the apartheid. That is a fact.

But of course, how could I get so wrong? Of course, the appearance, image, looks and smug talk of the leader are all big differentiating factors!

Not so fast, Dobbin, see you can't change the question on the fly to make it suit already prepared answer (as you do in the House). Everybody by now understands that you want to limit your view to one little tiny piece that suits your idea of reality, yet the full, complete reality that any rational and unbiased human being above age of 10 would be able to undestand, is: - 20 years of applying strategy - 70% increase in illegal settlements - "success" (gdobbin). Until you acknowledge that, I'm afraid we won't be able to move on anywhere else. You're absolutely free in what you can think, yet it is you here who stubbornly refuses to admit obvous facts. If you'd like to check an independent (medical) opinion on that, I think it could be a good idea. Sorry, which sides? You mean Palestinian side explicitly agreed to massive increase of setllements outside of Gaza and overall? You'll have to confirm this with facts or retract that part of your statement, that'll be another item I'll hold you to. BTW I also noticed a smug omission of East Jerusalem from your strategy. What about it, Dobbin, does your strategy also includes stop and dismantling of settlement there, Yes or No? We can discuss this after you answer #1 (overall result of your strategy) and #2 (Palestinian side authorising growth of settlements outside of Gaza). But of course there is. South Africa regime was reformed while sanctions were in place (again I'm sure you have special thoughs on the subject but I'd rather focus on reality at this time). Did South Africa regime start to reform while sanctions and isolation policy was in place, Dobbin, yes or no? Another example is Saddam's destruction of WMD while under sactions after the first Gulf War. What we don't have many examples of, is the friendly engagement working. It didn't work in South Africa, and as the plain facts show it did not work in the Isreaeli-Palestine conflict. A very obvious logical reason for that is that by giving unconditional support to one side, we discourage it from seeking genuine resolution and encourage it to continue hostile acts, like creeping annexation, and so on. That's what we have historically. No Dobbin, as a sane, rational human being I'm afraid the only conclusion I can make from the factual examples cited above is that santions can work if applied meaningfully, i.e. aimed at a clear measurable result.

And on the domestic agenda? EI? Would he himself know the dfference, because I don't. The only difference seems to be in the name. That's the kind a of a choice we're coming to get.

Ignatieff is trying to differentiate himself from Harper by becoming just like him. Must be philosophy.

No, they'll become arguments the moment you answer the question. So have your strategy resulted in a halt of construction, or reduction, of illegal settlements in ALL occupied territories? Yes or No? Till then it's a distraction because you'd use anything to avoid answering it, but you're only making a ridicule of yourself because it shows so clearly everything your strategy is, and isn't and worth of. And the 70% increase in illegal settlements. Thank you. That you are unable to take in the complete picture of reality, along with your focuses, grand plans and strategems is a condition of your brain. Try to admit it, as the first step toward healing. In the reality though your strategy is encouraging that land grab, creeping agression, and maybe causing escalation of hositilites. You claim to be wanting peace but in reality, the fact, you're working against it. But I can actually prove that it's you, because you're refusing to admit plain obvious facts, i.e. the reality, and that is the first major symptom of an irrational state of mind. And now you're ascending even higher on the spiral of irrationality (in which there's no end to your "progress") claiming as a fact failure of something that has never yet been tried. I already commented on severely flawed, yet incessant repetion of "disengagement" and won't do it agian because it wouldn't serve any purpose for someone who wouldn't read or comprehend the meaning of what they are reading.

Don't bring a distraction, Dobbin. Has your strategy achieved a halt, or reduction of illegal settlements in ALL of the occupied territories? Yes or no? The obvious (to anybody but yourself) answer, based on the posted facts is: NO. BTW this ever ongoing creeping growth of settlements AND your apparent support of that activity (70% increase = success!) can go some way in explaining bent up anger in the territories leading to some of those attacks. Never thought of that role your strategy plays in bringing the peace to the region? You can remind me of your deep thoughts as much as you want but it won't make them any more grounded in reality that that outlandish "70% increase = success!" claim. No, only stating obvious facts. People are given to ignoring reality and in time they come to recognise and repent it. As you're doing right now by refusing to admit obvious glaring facts. I know it may feel comforting to belong to a group, or even a gang, but still it doesn't make your position any more logically solid or credible. We'll discuss this angle as soon as you admit failure of your strategy in halting the construction of settlements, OK? Just for starters though, if you read my posts carefully (or just read them at all), I only mentioned disengagement as the ultimate act, if / when everything else fails. What I really advocate is a balanced, impartial engagement based on principles of justice, rights and peace, rather than ideology based affiliation. Your parrotting "disengagement" on every occasion and without it, is therefore just another ruse, distraction from a total bankrupcy of your strategy that utterly failed to achieve any progress in stopping the growth of settlements and therefore any real movement toward settlement of the conflict.

"Dealing with terrorists" means stealing the land? Summary destruction of homes? Grossly disproportionate military actions? Abuses of rights of civilians? Please clarify what you mean.

The complete truth is that there's been a massive increase in illegal settlements while your strategy has been in place. That you are incapable of, or don't wish to see and admit the complete truth makes you complicit in the deception. A far cry from a genuine position for peace that you (as anybody) can claim but in fact work against, by refusing to see and thus encouraging this creeping agression. We've already established that your focus has very little to do with reality, so I wouldn't mind at all if you just kept it to yourself, as your own, private affair, in which I have no interest, no any wish to discuss. The reality is, to remind: - twenty years; - 70% increase in illegal settlements (and counting) - "success" (gdobbin) That is your saying and we've actually seen, here, in this very thread, that you can say things that have no bearing to reality. Yet I kind of understand that for a mind failing in logical, rational analysis (whether deliberately or honestly, does not matter at this time), any rational point of view may look strange and "irrational". And it's you, Dobbin, who's failing in logical, rational thinking, that is a basis for any meaningful discussion, because you stubbornly refuse to admit obvious, plain facts that with arithmetic complexity of around third grade of elementary school. Again, Dobbin: - 20 years; - 70% increase in illegal settlements; Do you really have to be an Einstein to finally take it in? I'll have to repeat these plain, obvious facts until you either admit them, and their implication for your strategy, or it'll become plain and obvious to everybody here why, i.e. for what reason, genuine failure of rational thinking, or deliberate misleading because you wouldn't admit the truth that wouldn't fit in your plain, you adamantly refuse to admit facts.

Simple truth is, Dobbin: - twenty years (1989 - 2009) - 70% increase in illegal settlements in ALL territories - "success" (jdobbin) That is the truth. However you try to squirt and look the other way, there's no denying obvious facts. Your previous focuses brought massive increase in illegal settlements, and it would be irrational, if not insane, to expect a different result from applying the same failed approach over and over and again. I'll support anybody with a grain of rational attitude to reality, of which your position obviously has none. If one fails to even admit plain simple obvious facts, it'd be pure insanity to let them govern a country.

OK Dobbin, thank you, you finally did it. From the facts, we know that over two decades your strategy has been in place, the settlements grew by 70%. And now you're saying it was a success. I'm putting one and two together, and I can only conclude (as would anybody following the laws of logic and rationality) that for you, a substantial growth of settlements (70%) is a success. I can't care less, that you point to some distraction, some emptly field somewhere as an excuse or diversion. the fact remains, that for you, 70% increase in settlements = "success" So whatever you said previously about burning to assist in peace, must be either a confusion of mental state, or even worse, a deliberate deception, because for any rational individual, trumpeting agressive acts of that magnitude as success would be about as contrary to the real, genuine objective of peace, as anything possibly could. P.S I alrady said that your "focus" is your own, private, mental, thing (unless a useless excuse, distraction even a first grader would be able to see through) and I'll repeat it as many times as necessary for it to sink in. By insisting that your private visions, focuses and strategems have immediate bearing on reality, you only making a ridicule of yourself. A token of a rational person is to be able to admit the reality and change their ways if they don't agree with it. Your position in this discussion reflects neither, and if it's representing the position, or condition of your party, I would be even more reluctant than ever to support it, because to me general lacking of rationality is by far more serious problem than a disagreement on any particular issue.

You must be meaning that factual proof that the expansion of settlements in ALL territories has finally ceased? Very unfortunately, that great news has missed me (and I think not only me), so can you kindly repost your sources? If not though, I'll have to repeat my question again, so 1) your strategy failed (to halt the expansion of settlements, in more than two decades); or 2) you still going to say something that will change the reality around us; which one it's going to be?

Our ability to travel should justify human right abuses, illegal practices and military operations conducted by one "democracy" against another? "Outpost of culture" sounds much more convincing, and I'd quite agree, thanks for openness. It's hardly about democracy (Hamas is also a democratically elected government, after all, only with a very different result), but much more about setting up our outpost in the region (hostile or not, remains to be seen, but acts like establishing and keeping "outposts" by force certainly won't make it any friendlier). I.e. gang mentality, "us" against "them", the "democracy" thing is only a token, coin phrase for the feeble of mind.

No, your focus is not the reality, it's your own private mental thing. The reality is that the settlements grew by 10%. That is the reality and also the result of your strategy. I'll have to repeat it as many times as necessary until one of the two happens, 1) you admit the obvious fact that your strategy has failed to stop the expansion of settlements; or 2) you say something that could instantly change the facts. Other than the two, we're stuck with the factual situation and your focus is nothing more than a distraction, pointless talk, "dog ate my homework but". We have one strategy that is already demonstratably bankrupt, so we can't really go any worse than that.

We're in a far more complex age than to allow simplistic "pro" and "anti" perceptions, strategies and policies to rule. Our approach should be based on principle, fairness and reality. This has yet to sink in both to individuals with atavistic tribal instincts, and certain party leaders alike.

Yeah, we know, dog ate my homework, but my focus is now squarely on.. wouldn't be much else to add, eh? Your problem is that you mix the reality (no homework, ever continuing expansion of settlements, etc) with your mental state ("focus is now"). You see, the latter does not necessarily change the former, or we would all be living in our own private paradises. Yet the facts, numbers, speak for themselves, again: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2004: 440 K 2006: 470 K (and more added since, even in this week's news) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now try to say something that will change the facts, the actual state reality. Till then, I don't think there would be mch point in this discussion, as it's been proven to you with facts that your strategy is bankrupt, and you simply choose to ignore reality and refuse to admit it.

Here's the details on settlements: Wikipedia: Israeli settlements Some actual data (excerpts from above): 1993: Total: 281,800 (end of Cold War) 2004: Gaza: 7,800 Total: 441,165 2006: Gaza: 0 Total: 470,562 (and near 70% increase over the 1993) There you go, Dobbin, notice the addition of healthy 30,000 (i.e. close to 10% in only couple of years), all the while you were running around proclaiming great "results". Indeed your strategy seems to be working (i.e there's actual, measurable difference that some may call "result" or even "progress", depending on their - and yours, correct?, point of view). I don't think there should be any doubts by now which way your strategy is heading, nor there's any need for more words, the numbers speak for themselves very clearly. You can enjoy that nice and smiley view in your telescope, that's certainly your right, but, again, as the facts clearly show, it has little to do with the reality. Just as that seemingly genuine concernt for wordly peace. To NC: In all honestly I don't see any (real practical difference).

No I admit it freely, but for me moving settlements out of a strategically useless piece of land somewhere else is not a "result", not for twenty or so years of talking and stating and restating. And now it's your turn, Dobbin, so: in over two decades we've been "engaged", has it resulted in actual halt and reduction of settlements in ALL occupied territories? Yes or no, Dobbin, as only one can be true? Do you call it a "result" and maybe, also "success"? Indeed. So is our "engagement" reducing escalation, or maybe flaming them up? Because somebody somewhere who's not at all interested in "peace" can just press ahead with new plans, constructions, military actions, because they know the worth of the talk, but the real, practical, material support would keep coming? You can repeat it forever, and yet it won't remove one new illegal settlers home from the ground. If you call continuous expansion of settlements a "result", it only makes it very clear what your objectives were all along. So let's round it up, you're stuck with a strategy that has obviously failed in more that two decades of trial, and your only idea is, I'm gonna keep doing this because you haven't proven that something different will work. Maybe you find it smart, if so, you could try similar approach in everything you do, could make you a genius! BTW I did provide logical argumentation for conditional disengament, (remember, incentive to seek dialog to factions that weren't interested because they know the support would keep coming despite all the stating and restating), so it is supported indeed, enough at least to try it for a change. If in two decades it fails to bring real, practical results, unlike you I'll freely admit that I was wrong. Not at all, as you can easily find out by rereading the original post (if interested, of course). Consistent and strong adn clear official position was only the first step. BTW it is the "official statements" that has to be issues persistengly, in a "strong and clear" manner, so some of your examples wouldn't qualify. To mention that there's been more settlement expansion announcements since May, and where are those statements, clear and unambigous? One'd thing that after two decades of continuous, ongoing expansion, the time for mild chiding has long passed, but not you, Dobbin? That is because you want to see the real actual results, no doubt. If I understand Dobbin's position correctly, we have to be involved to turn things for the better (as that is our nature), but because we cann only be involved in a certain way, like giving unconditional support to one side, that makes us a great mediator in the eventual resolution, and also brings great results such as making our friendly party move settlements around, while continuously expanding them, which in itself goes a long way to calm down the conflict and reduce future escalations (which would be catastrophically enormous, if we were to withdraw our positive influence).

You don't have to repeat it, just admit the obvious fact that friendly engagement has failed to halt the expansion of settelement, which was going on while the strategy was in place for over two decades and still continues as we speak. You future plans and strategems neither change nor negate the actual situation now. No comments as you're obviously pulling things out of thin air. How can one seriously discuss some imaginary situations, can I fill any number of threads with those, instantly. Here's one, aliens decided to lend their support and superior technology to Palestinians, what we gonna do now?!!! But you see much that "engaged" one(s) don't succeed. And so? Should we press on with the one that "has role", but no result? Or maybe try something different, for a change? I know you did, but you also left out all argumentation to that (other than your belief) that makes it just that, a statement. Without no relevance to this discussion (your private beliefs is your own affair and I'm not inclined to discuss them in any way) I do not back away from anything. I said making the statements should be the first step. If talking by itself proves ineffective in bringing real result, as it hasn't been in the past, there must be other real measures to make sure that everybody understand that we mean what we're saying. And so far, talking and stating has certainly failed to bring real, actual results, as news of further expansion arrive on a regular basis (certainly there's been a few after May). What do we want, the statements, or the real, actual result? And what do we have to show, in real, actual terms, for two decades of engagement? I see. Foolish ANC has started all the trouble inspired by Soviets, while SA regime was willing to drop the apartheid all along. Such a misunderstanding, right off Shakespeare!

But the settlements have grown in the meanwhile, just as they did during the earlier "peace" (Oslo) accord. Can you see the trend, Gobbin? Whatever happens, however it turns, the settlements always grow. And you want to call it progress? And reward it? Now you can get an idea why they're growing. And who's being "conductive" to it. Why do you want to be "influential", for influence's sake, or to achieve the result (peace)? Looks like the former, if you see possiblity of progress as an unwanted event, all because you weren't directly involved. If removing lopsided foreign support would give parties strong incentive to seek genuine approaches to peace, everybody will benefit. When they are ready, they'll look for a trusted mediator, the role we would be much more likely to play if we maintained balanced, impartial and just position. See above. And define your objectives clearly, please: "help" for help's sake, or actual progress toward peace? I'd say if progress happens without Canada's direct involvement, is lot better than not happening at all (as now, ie. under friendly engagement), you think otherwise? I can't recall any practical confirmation to that (from Canada; please don't cite Obama), maybe I'm missing something? Of course. I'll eat exactly one crumb of something bad, in the exact proportion of the official reaction to the events transpiring on near daily basis in the territories. Well, with no desire to sidetrack in that new direction, what we do know for sure is that "productive engagement" did not work there. That much is a fact.

No, that simply isn't true. If we saw actual reduction of illegal settlements in all occupied territories, I would applaud and commend you. I said as much myself, haven't I, "progress = reward", but it must be real progress, not some smoke screens. But we've seen how "engagement" doesn't. Is it sane to continue doing the same old thing that obviously doesn't work ad infinitum, until one day one miraculous moment it might? Is that what you do at home? No, you haven't! One thing that simply does not exist in this thread is the real referenced examples of clear unambiguous and strong official (by party or country) condemnation of inacceptable actions such as excess violence, in military operations, construction of settlements, violation of human rigths. If you show me otherwise, I promise to eat something bad. And if you can still find such examples, and post them here, it would be very educational, and everybody will be thankful. This needs no further comments. Very convincing indeed.