Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[myata]

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.

[jdobbin]

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.

I think it is very directly on the subject. I believe your anonymous nature is the driving force for the way you act. I just can't see how it has any influence at all on Israel or on voting in general.

[myata]

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

[jdobbin]

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

It does. Because I don't think you're serious on this forum. It is hard to believe you really believe what you say or would act the way you do if you actually had to put a name to the opinion.

Edited July 11, 2009 by jdobbin

[myata]

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.

[jdobbin]

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.

And I think it is totally pertinent to the topic as I find it hard to believe that you are serious. As for the facts, I think we can safely say that your way of doing things has no credibility at all. It is hard to believe that anything you say here is anything but mischief by someone who feels they can get away with it because no one knows who they are.

[myata]

As for the facts, I think we can safely say that your way of doing things has no credibility at all.

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.

[jdobbin]

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.

I think those were all on your part.

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.

I can't think of anyone who believes your way of doing thing is the way to go. Nor can I find any in the world. I haven't seen any examples at all.

I know you get angry and upset by it and your tendency to lash out seems motivated by the fact that you are not held to account by revealing publicly who you are.

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.

I have a hard time thinking you are serious.

Edited July 11, 2009 by jdobbin

[myata]

I think those were all on your part.

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

[jdobbin]

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

You're right. And what we saw was that you have no evidence your way will do anything.

[myata]

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

Edited July 11, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

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

Yes success. The only process this far that has ended in peace agreements between Jordan, Israel and Egypt. The only process that removed settlers from a geographic area. The only process to get both sides talking about a two state solution.

[myata]

Yes success. The only process this far that has ended in peace agreements between Jordan, Israel and Egypt.

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?

The only process that removed settlers from a geographic area.

We've already established documented, factual meaning of that "success". So indeed, this a

<"success!"> repeating argument that has been already adressed

The only process to get both sides talking about a two state solution.

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?)

Edited July 11, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

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?). So. 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?

There are no impartial choices.

There can be no real peace unless violence is renounced and not merely in hiatus. The departure of settlers and return of prisoners from Gaza triggered renewed violence. It is an ongoing escalation. The focus on the West Bank was delayed since it was felt that some Palestinians would simply continue the attack into pre-1967 borders of Israel and that leaving the area would not bring new security.

The stated goal of Hamas to push Israel into the sea and take back all the land can't be ignored.

Obama is now trying to get the process back on track by getting both sides to talk about two states and start returning land for an enduring security deal.

Obama is also trying to achieve a wider security and peace deal. The situation with Syria seems to represent an opportunity and could represent a chance to remove 18,000 settlers.

It is only now that two of the most entrenched and unchangeable leaders in Israel and Palestine have talked about two states.

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?)

The intransigence comes from the belief that violence will achieve one's aims or that settlements will be better for security for Israel.

What Israel learns is that settlements don't provide better security and Palestinians are learning that violence doesn't stop settlements.

There is no impartial position to take except to get the parties to recognize this. Unilateral sanctions against Israel or Palestine are not influential in the least.

[myata]

There are no impartial choices.

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.

There can be no real peace unless violence is renounced and not merely in hiatus. The departure of settlers and return of prisoners from Gaza triggered renewed violence. It is an ongoing escalation.

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?

The focus on the West Bank was delayed since it was felt that some Palestinians would simply continue the attack into pre-1967 borders of Israel and that leaving the area would not bring new security.

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.

The stated goal of Hamas to push Israel into the sea and take back all the land can't be ignored.

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.

Obama is now trying to get the process back on track by getting both sides to talk about two states and start returning land for an enduring security deal.

...

Obama is also trying to achieve a wider security and peace deal. The situation with Syria seems to represent an opportunity and could represent a chance to remove 18,000 settlers.

...

It is only now that two of the most entrenched and unchangeable leaders in Israel and Palestine have talked about two states.

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?

There is no impartial position to take except to get the parties to recognize this. Unilateral sanctions against Israel or Palestine are not influential in the least.

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...?

[jdobbin]

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.

Every choice takes a position: That side, this side or your side. Making a claim of being impartial is not exactly true. If Canada sets up clear position, as you say, we are the ones making a choice and it is hardly impartial. It means, we think we know what is best and have set the terms ourselves.

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?

What do you refuse to see that the process was to move from one place to the other in terms of cessation of violence and removal of settlers?

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:

The violence was not renounced, not was the threat to push Isreal into the sea, nor was two states accepted. The calmness wasn't really happening as even the U.N. said that arms were pouring into the Palestinians territories for the next round of violence. So, the build up to fight continued non-stop.

This was the lesson learned from Northern Ireland: It was not enough to come to terms that people found acceptable. It also had to come with ending militias, actually pulling out of territory and handing over of weapons to authorities.

1. Do you consider the expansion of settlements as a serious obstacle to peace that has to be dealt with?

That has been the world's position and mine.

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?

Pulling out of Gaza didn't end the build up of arms there or using it as a base to launch attacks. This is because until recently, Hamas didn't accept the two state approach and was out to drive Israel into the sea.

All progress on moving to the West Bank ended when both sides decided to fight it out once again.

Now, the process is resuming and the move is to both end violence and remove settlers and agree on a two state approach.

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?

If the attacks or threats to Israel security continue, they continue settlements in the West Bank.

Canada should always be pushing to bring things to the negotiating table.

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.

Every time Israel has done a prisoner exchange, eased access to Israel or returned land as in Gaza, the Palestinians have continued violence against Israel and the process has derailed.

If Canada sets the terms unilaterally, it will not be impartial. It will our side only and not necessarily the best one. We have seen when someone sets up terms from the outside and thinks they are acting impartially. Indian and Pakistan was Britain's doing and what have we got from it as a result? Two nuclear states and terrorist attacks.

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?

But this is what we learned from Northern Ireland. If the process doesn't try to get the language talking about the same thing, actions won't produce the results desired. In other words, a lull in violence is not the same things as renouncing it. Removing settlers is not the same thing as allowing freedom to do have sovereignty over the land.

I don't want Canada to simply draw a line, mark a time in the calendar and say this and this must happen or we end all assistance, trade, involvement, acceptance of refugees and immigrants. It won't work. Just as this type of thing did not work for Britain over the issue of Muslims and Hindus in India.

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...?

Hamas' militant wing was designated a terrorist organization because of suicide bombings and kidnapping.

Canada continued to aid Palestine but would not deal with Hamas's militant side because they never agreed to end violence nor were they part of the negotiation process. Even now, Canada is the largest international aid donor to Gaza but until Hamas wishes to negotiate, it is they that are acting unilaterally.

Edited July 13, 2009 by jdobbin

[myata]

Every choice takes a position: That side, this side or your side. Making a claim of being impartial is not exactly true. If Canada sets up clear position, as you say, we are the ones making a choice and it is hardly impartial. It means, we think we know what is best and have set the terms ourselves.

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?

What do you refuse to see that the process was to move from one place to the other in terms of cessation of violence and removal of settlers?

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?

The violence was not renounced, not was the threat to push Isreal into the sea, nor was two states accepted. The calmness wasn't really happening as even the U.N. said that arms were pouring into the Palestinians territories for the next round of violence. So, the build up to fight continued non-stop.

OK, so the question is still ignored and you get a success, as promised:

<"success!"> ignoring an argument by opponent that was clearly stated

This was the lesson learned from Northern Ireland: It was not enough to come to terms that people found acceptable. It also had to come with ending militias, actually pulling out of territory and handing over of weapons to authorities.

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.

That has been the world's position and mine.

Good that we have it for the record.

Pulling out of Gaza didn't end the build up of arms there or using it as a base to launch attacks. This is because until recently, Hamas didn't accept the two state approach and was out to drive Israel into the sea.

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?

If the attacks or threats to Israel security continue, they continue settlements in the West Bank.

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".

Every time Israel has done a prisoner exchange, eased access to Israel or returned land as in Gaza, the Palestinians have continued violence against Israel and the process has derailed.

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?

If Canada sets the terms unilaterally, it will not be impartial.

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".

I don't want Canada to simply draw a line, mark a time in the calendar and say this and this must happen or we end all assistance, trade, involvement, acceptance of refugees and immigrants. It won't work. Just as this type of thing did not work for Britain over the issue of Muslims and Hindus in India.

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

Hamas' militant wing was designated a terrorist organization because of suicide bombings and kidnapping.

Canada continued to aid Palestine but would not deal with Hamas's militant side because they never agreed to end violence nor were they part of the negotiation process. Even now, Canada is the largest international aid donor to Gaza but until Hamas wishes to negotiate, it is they that are acting unilaterally.

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.

Edited July 13, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

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?

We have condemned both the violence and the continued building. You go one step further and say Canada should the define what is best and decide the terms and this is impartial.

No I don't refuse it, and I said it before so you get a

<"success!"> misinterpretation of opponent.

"Success!> in acting like it is less important than settlements!

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?

I know you want it all at the same time or you regard the whole thing as a failure.

OK, so the question is still ignored and you get a success, as promised:

<"success!"> ignoring an argument by opponent that was clearly stated

<"Success!> for ignoring the violence and focussing on settlements once again!

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.

Baloney. You obviously know nothing about Northern Ireland.

Good that we have it for the record.

I have said it a number of times here.

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?

<"Success!> for ignoring why Canada doesn't deal with those that are not part of the process!

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".

Once again, I support the position of Canada. End the violence and settlements and get back to the negotiation table.

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?

Which Hamas did not agree to it and kept rearming through the whole time.

You also don't mention that issues like Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, security and borders were deliberately left out of Oslo.

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".

Canada will have as much success as Britain does if it tries to set the terms of a relationship.

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

<"Success!"> for ignoring the fact that this is what your proposal is all about.

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.

Israel agreed to a process. Hamas did not. They unilaterally decided not to take part.

And now, as you promised to us all an explaination of why honest, 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've already said that Canada can't be impartial of we set out our terms for how this should be settled.

<"Success!> though in going back to your silly behaviour. How old are you anyway?

[myata]

We have condemned both the violence and the continued building.

OK, Dobbin, we have a real obstacle to our peaceful discussion and we need to address it first hand. At issue is the apparent paradoxical contradiction between our (your) word - that build up of settlements is a serious obstacle to you know what, and the absence, I mean absolute, 100% perfect absence of any real and practical acts to confirm that (if I'm wrong Dobbin, i.e. such acts actually happened in actuality - I mean acts not words, please pay attention, you'll certainly oblige everybody by pointing to specific examples). So, we have:

1) The Words;

2) The Act (what's been done to make The Words come to reality - i.e. as already explained, nothing)

The Words (halt of expansion and reduction of illegal settlements) are very obviously not the same as The Result (massive expansion of settlements and our absolute, 100% perfect failure to do anything about it), and I'm only trying to reconcile the two, logically. In that, there would be exactly three logical possibilities:

#1 The Words are wrong (i.e. what is said is not the same as what is thought, and therefore there was never any real, genuine intent to act);

#2 The Act is wrong (we truly believe in The Words, and we admit that our act hasn't been productive to achive them - and if we still believe in The Words as we're writing this, we're going to change our act, so that next time around, the result could be different).

#3 And finally, we'd love to, but were incapable to act.

However, as we all know from our actual act against Hamas, #3 isn't really applicable here, we can and do act against some parties and some violations. This leaves the logical choice limited to only two options: The Word and The Act. By laws of logic, one must be wrong, so which one would it be? This btw is a direct and clear question.

"Success!> in acting like it is less important than settlements!

I certainly appreciate your attempts to point out the flaws in my arguments, but this wouldn't be one of them, because as I stated multiple times, the critical agendas of deescalation also include cessation of hostilities (military and insurgent), and progress on human rights. You may not have noticed, but it's your problem, because it's your responsibility in a meanigful discussion to understand the argument of your opponent and respond to it in good faith (you can certainly ask for clarification if necessary).

Moreover, as evident there's no lack of real and practical response to insurgent violence from one side, and therefore the question remains, why such response hasn't been forthcoming against massive violations of the settlements agenda by the other side?

I know you want it all at the same time or you regard the whole thing as a failure.

It's somewhat creative phrase, but I'd certainly insist on overall situation being maintained at an acceptable level, along with any local progress. Otherwise the meaning of "progress" becomes lost for all practical purposes and you'll be able to play your hopscotch game claiming "successes" forever (could it be what this all is about)?

<"Success!> for ignoring the violence and focussing on settlements once again!

I see that you're running out of arguments, Dobbin, and it's of no surprise to me, as you carry that ardous task of ignoring the reality, and excusing inexcusable.

Baloney. You obviously know nothing about Northern Ireland.

You mean, there's been a creeping annexation of land in the Northern Ireland? You'll post some refernce to that, will you, otherwise, it would be you know what, yet another "success".

<"Success!> for ignoring why Canada doesn't deal with those that are not part of the process!

However, the question was, why nothing was and is being done about massive violations of settlement agenda. It appears that it's moving to be a central part of this discussion, and so I won't let you sidetrack anywhere else, until and unless it's answered clearly and completely.

The rest is just more attempts to weasel out of the conundrum you found yourself in, but to no avail. You proclaimed that construction of settlements is wrong. You can act and you have acted against party that violated other agendas. Why have you never acted and by all indications, will not act against continuous and ongoing massive violations of one of criitical peace agendas by your friendly party? And how is it "conductive" to peace (or what is it actually "conductive" to?).

BTW Dobbin, there's still one direct question you failed to address from the previous post, so again:

Do you support Israel's policy of expansion of settlements in retaliation for transgressions of the agreement?

We can talk about general meanings of impartiality as soon as we have addressed these pressing issues.

Edited July 13, 2009 by myata

[jdobbin]

However, as we all know from our actual act against Hamas, #3 isn't really applicable here, we can and do act against some parties and some violations. This leaves the logical choice limited to only two options: The Word and The Act. By laws of logic, one must be wrong, so which one would it be? This btw is a direct and clear question.

Hamas has not tried to be part of the process, in fact has worked against it and have unilaterally decided to sanction the process. Canada has stated it supports those working for the process of peace. Hamas has not any time to date.

I certainly appreciate your attempts to point out the flaws in my arguments, but this wouldn't be one of them, because as I stated multiple times, the critical agendas of deescalation also include cessation of hostilities (military and insurgent), and progress on human rights. You may not have noticed, but it's your problem, because it's your responsibility in a meanigful discussion to understand the argument of your opponent and respond to it in good faith (you can certainly ask for clarification if necessary).

Your focus has primarily been on settlements. It has not been on Hamas violence or refusal to be part of the process.

Moreover, as evident there's no lack of real and practical response to insurgent violence from one side, and therefore the question remains, why such response hasn't been forthcoming against massive violations of the settlements agenda by the other side?

What specifically has Canada done to Palestine? We remain as one of the primary sources of aid to the area. We are now the largest giver of aid to Gaza reconstruction according to those at the G8 meeting.

Hamas does not speak for all of Palestine.

It's somewhat creative phrase, but I'd certainly insist on overall situation being maintained at an acceptable level, along with any local progress. Otherwise the meaning of "progress" becomes lost for all practical purposes and you'll be able to play your hopscotch game claiming "successes" forever (could it be what this all is about)?

Since this is what the Oslo agreements were about, it seems you supported that process at one time. After all, you said it was successful.

I see that you're running out of arguments, Dobbin, and it's of no surprise to me, as you carry that ardous task of ignoring the reality, and excusing inexcusable.

You keep ignoring the fact that one side until recently has unilaterally taken a position of violent overthrow of all Israelis from all land.

You mean, there's been a creeping annexation of land in the Northern Ireland? You'll post some refernce to that, will you, otherwise, it would be you know what, yet another "success".

This is what both Catholic and Protestants fought over. They tried to burn out each other's land and buildings and move into the area. This went on back and forth. They tried to drive one another from the land.

The provisional IRA started when Loyalists started burning homes in 1969 and drove a few thousand Catholics out of the area.

However, the question was, why nothing was and is being done about massive violations of settlement agenda. It appears that it's moving to be a central part of this discussion, and so I won't let you sidetrack anywhere else, until and unless it's answered clearly and completely.

Something was done about settlements. It was called Gaza. Nothing was done about continued violence though.

The rest is just more attempts to weasel out of the conundrum you found yourself in, but to no avail. You proclaimed that construction of settlements is wrong. You can act and you have acted against party that violated other agendas. Why have you never acted and by all indications, will not act against continuous and ongoing massive violations of one of criitical peace agendas by your friendly party? And how is it "conductive" to peace (or what is it actually "conductive" to?).

I support the process of talks and the end of violence and building of settlements. Israel has moved of one area and the violence didn't stop. The process derailed because the two sides seemed to want to fight rather than talk.

BTW Dobbin, there's still one direct question you failed to address from the previous post, so again:

Do you support Israel's policy of expansion of settlements in retaliation for transgressions of the agreement?

Never said I supported it. I said the process derailed as a result of continued violence.

We can talk about general meanings of impartiality as soon as we have addressed these pressing issues.

No country setting terms on another country's problems is impartial.

[myata]

Something was done about settlements. It was called Gaza. Nothing was done about continued violence though.

If you want call moving one settler out of a small area, while adding another three a progress, by the same definition (courtesy jdobbin) increase in violence should also be OK as long as there's a small area in which it would have gone down. Especially, e.g. massive increase in violence in one area (Gaza) could be tolerated, just as massive increase of illegal settlements e.g. in East Jerusalem (2.5 times). No? Why not? Why would you insist on using different criteria for violence (real decrease and cessation) as opposed to building of illegal settlements (Dobbins interesting definition of "progress", whereby things could go the other way, like totally the opposite way, and still be considered progress).).

No, you wouldn't want your creativity to work both ways, but only in the direction you like, do I understand you correctly?

Dobbin, Hamaz has increased violence and received real sanctions. Israel has expanded settlements and received an pat on the shoulder. You still have to find a logical explanation to your drastically different reactions to these major violations of peace agendas, so please let us know when you think you're ready to share it.

[jdobbin]

If you want call moving one settler out of a small area, while adding another three a progress, by the same definition (courtesy jdobbin) increase in violence should also be OK as long as there's a small area in which it would have gone down. Especially, e.g. massive increase in violence in one area (Gaza) could be tolerated, just as massive increase of illegal settlements e.g. in East Jerusalem (2.5 times). No? Why not? Why would you insist on using different criteria for violence (real decrease and cessation) as opposed to building of illegal settlements (Dobbins interesting definition of "progress", whereby things could go the other way, like totally the opposite way, and still be considered progress).).

You called Oslo success even though it didn't even cover settlements.

Dobbin, Hamaz has increased violence and received real sanctions. Israel has expanded settlements and received an pat on the shoulder. You still have to find a logical explanation to your drastically different reactions to these major violations of peace agendas, so please let us know when you think you're ready to share it.

Please details the Canadian sanctions against Hamas.

[myata]

OK, you implicitly admit (by failing to provide any argument) that the same standard should be applied to all agendas, but still, Dobbin, we'd still like to know which one (in your view), it should be, i.e 1) normal, common sense standard, where an actual overall progress toward the goal has to be shown to qualify as success; OR 2) Dobbin-like approach, where a massive overall regression could still be seen as important "progress" and "success" as long as some (very specific) criteria carefully selected by Dobbin are met, and without unnecessary reference or relevance to the overall state of the situation?

Now regarding our reaction to transgressions and violations of peace agendas. Here's what we have on Hamas (without limitation to listed below and without necessarily limiting the scope to Canada only, though this country indeed participated in some if not all actions):

1) Economic sanctions ()Economic sanctions against PNA following (democratic) election

2) Diplomatic isolation and other "restrictive sanctions" imposed after election of Hamas (multiple references e.g. US eases diplomatic boycott of Hamas

3) Declaring it a terrorist organisation.

4) Specifically by Canada, interruption of aid

And here's what there's on Israel's persistent expansion of settlements (which is, according to Dobbin, another important agenda in the resolution of this conflict), in the way of real, practical actions:

Of course I cannot pretend to have all information pertainiting to such actions, and if I missed anything, Dobbin would graciously oblige us all by posting references to the appropriate examples.

And now everybody, relax comfortably in your seat, as Dobbin would explain, logically and rationally, the nature of this paradox, i.e. why exactly that way of action (and inaction) is correct, rational, and would necessarily lead to successful resolution of the conflict.

Edited July 14, 2009 by myata

[normanchateau]

Israel has to be willing to give up some water.

And Israel has to take back the chewing gum:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...E55DV8LHxvldfiA

[myata]

I know. We don't happen to like the guy on the other side, and that in itself should justify us in whatever we do to him. Dobbin is still working on a logical explanation that would reconcile our world famous sense of justice and goodness with somewhat different reality of our act on the ground, and everybody else who thinks they'd have an idea, is welcome to try as well.

Edited July 14, 2009 by myata